Black Holes and the Evolution of the Universe

[Klovdal]

Black Holes and the Evolution of the Universe

I have come to the conclusion that our universe was born in the cataclysmic collapse of a giant black hole. The evidence for this suggestion is that if you were to compress all the ordinary matter that exists in the observable universe (about 8.8x10 to the power of 52 kg) into an ever smaller volume over time, by running the evolution of the universe backwards in time. you would form a black hole at some definite time in the past. From this point onward you would not be able to tell much about any future developments, as the known laws of nature would not apply. However, attempts have been made to extrapolate the expansion of the universe backwards in time using relativistic calculations. These calculations lead to infinities in density and temperature at a point of singularity, conditions that do not make physical sense. This shows that the singularity is more a concept of mathematics than physical reality.

With the terms "our universe"' or the universe in general, I mean the observable universe, which may be imbedded in a much larger eternal universe.

Not much is known about black holes, other than that they have mass and spacial extent and may be spinning. However, it is reasonable to assume that all the matter and energy that have been consumed by the black hole over time is conserved inside the black hole. This represent an enormous amount of energy, but it is finite. There is no infinite density or singularity inside the black hole, but there may be dark matter and dark energy.

It is suggested that all the energy preserved in the black hole is stored in a united force field, or positive energy field encompassing all the known forces of nature and all the elementary particles. When the the black hole erupts, this super force field splits into fields of gravity and electromagnetism. The phase transformation releases an enormous amount of energy in the form of intense radiation. As space expands, elementary particles are formed and the electromagnetic field splits into the strong and weak nuclear fields, and more energy is released.

A time dimension may exist inside the black hole, but time is running extremely slow because of the enormous pull of gravity. The stability of the black hole may depend on on the balance between the enormous pressure of gravity and the quantum fluctuations of the dark matter.

It is possible that only about 4% of the total energy present in the black hole participated in the phase transformation-symmetry breaking processes. The rest (about 96%) may be dark matter and dark energy that were distributed into the universe by the space expansion. The equilibrium of the black hole may have been challenged by the collision with another black hole, or it may just be that it becomes unstable when it reaches a certain size.

The whole process is cyclical. As stars, galaxies and black holes move about in the universe, heavy objects tend to get heavier, and black holes will grow in size. The universe may be expanding, but locally gravity will prevail. What is likely to happen is that most of the matter swirling around black holes at the center of most galaxies will eventually be consumed by the black holes Over eons of time most of the matter in the universe will end up in black holes. The universe will be a dark and lonely place during this epoch of black holes domination. But there is light at the end of the tunnel when two super massive holes collide, creating shock waves that disturb the equilibrium that existed before the collision, and a new universe is born.

The mass of the largest black hole known to exist is about 1.3x 10 to the power of 41kg. There you may have the seeds for another universe in the making.

Any comments on the scenario presented?


Thank you,

KRW

 

[Dexter101]

I presented this scenario in another forum "Is the Universe Cyclical". You might want to check it out.

 

[Klovdal]

Thanks for the referral. However, a search did not come up with your specific scenario.
When you have a chance, please send a link to your scenario.

 

[Dexter101]

Question - Cyclical Universe

If the Universe is indeed cyclical , how was the first one made ?

forums.space.com

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

What proof do you have that the big bang is the universe?
Quantum fluctuation was here before the big bang so big bang might simply be an energy balance of it and our concept of what the universe is could be very wrong.
As for big bang cyclical it's inevitable in a Quantum fluctuation universe/universes but not in a big bang only universe. JMO
A quantum universe or universes have many ways to start from nothing, create everything and cause big bangs.
A big bang universe really has no good way to have a start point from nothing.

 

[EVONKA]

Black Holes and the Evolution of the Universe

I have come to the conclusion that our universe was born in the cataclysmic collapse of a giant black hole. The evidence for this suggestion is that if you were to compress all the ordinary matter that exists in the observable universe (about 8.8x10 to the power of 52 kg) into an ever smaller volume over time, by running the evolution of the universe backwards in time. you would form a black hole at some definite time in the past. From this point onward you would not be able to tell much about any future developments, as the known laws of nature would not apply. However, attempts have been made to extrapolate the expansion of the universe backwards in time using relativistic calculations. These calculations lead to infinities in density and temperature at a point of singularity, conditions that do not make physical sense. This shows that the singularity is more a concept of mathematics than physical reality.

With the terms "our universe"' or the universe in general, I mean the observable universe, which may be imbedded in a much larger eternal universe.

Not much is known about black holes, other than that they have mass and spacial extent and may be spinning. However, it is reasonable to assume that all the matter and energy that have been consumed by the black hole over time is conserved inside the black hole. This represent an enormous amount of energy, but it is finite. There is no infinite density or singularity inside the black hole, but there may be dark matter and dark energy.

It is suggested that all the energy preserved in the black hole is stored in a united force field, or positive energy field encompassing all the known forces of nature and all the elementary particles. When the the black hole erupts, this super force field splits into fields of gravity and electromagnetism. The phase transformation releases an enormous amount of energy in the form of intense radiation. As space expands, elementary particles are formed and the electromagnetic field splits into the strong and weak nuclear fields, and more energy is released.

A time dimension may exist inside the black hole, but time is running extremely slow because of the enormous pull of gravity. The stability of the black hole may depend on on the balance between the enormous pressure of gravity and the quantum fluctuations of the dark matter.

It is possible that only about 4% of the total energy present in the black hole participated in the phase transformation-symmetry breaking processes. The rest (about 96%) may be dark matter and dark energy that were distributed into the universe by the space expansion. The equilibrium of the black hole may have been challenged by the collision with another black hole, or it may just be that it becomes unstable when it reaches a certain size.

The whole process is cyclical. As stars, galaxies and black holes move about in the universe, heavy objects tend to get heavier, and black holes will grow in size. The universe may be expanding, but locally gravity will prevail. What is likely to happen is that most of the matter swirling around black holes at the center of most galaxies will eventually be consumed by the black holes Over eons of time most of the matter in the universe will end up in black holes. The universe will be a dark and lonely place during this epoch of black holes domination. But there is light at the end of the tunnel when two super massive holes collide, creating shock waves that disturb the equilibrium that existed before the collision, and a new universe is born.

The mass of the largest black hole known to exist is about 1.3x 10 to the power of 41kg. There you may have the seeds for another universe in the making.

Any comments on the scenario presented?


Thank you,

KRW

 

[EVONKA]

That does make a lot of sense!

 

[David-J-Franks]

With the terms "our universe"' or the universe in general, I mean the observable universe, which may be imbedded in a much larger eternal universe.

Hi, the dictionary definition of 'universe' is "everything that there is". This web sites articles and most top scientists seem to keep referring to the big bang and the universe as one and the same thing. for example, statements like - "The universe started with the big bang". It is a huge assumption that the contents of the big bang are 'everything that is' ie the universe. There's absolutely no evidence to support this, I find it completely unscientific.

I see 2 distinct meanings - 'The contents of the Big bang' which is finite and the 'Universe' which is 'everything that there is', which must be infinite, and contain an infinite amount of separate 'contents of Big bangs' at various stages of evolution. I call this 'The Infinite' to distinguish it from the incorrect use of the word universe when only actually the contents of the Big bang were being discussed.

The contents of the Big bang consists of the 'observable contents' (incorrectly called the observable universe) and 'whole contents' (incorrectly called the whole universe) I'm saying incorrectly because it's wrong to assume the contents of the Big bang are 'everything that there is' ie the universe.

It's a great idea you've got, it's also central to my own personal theory of the universe. I occasionally see others also with similar ideas. In fact, if you want a laugh there's a lady over on 'live science' site who likens black holes to vacuum cleaners and goes on to say the bag eventually bursts. https://forums.livescience.com/threads/black-hole-life-span.2776/#post-12357

A time dimension may exist inside the black hole, but time is running extremely slow because of the enormous pull of gravity. The stability of the black hole may depend on on the balance between the enormous pressure of gravity and the quantum fluctuations of the dark matter.

Not quite sure what you mean here especially since I think there's no such thing as time, only motion.

It may well be that as in the contents of the Big bang normal particles don't exist in black holes, only their associated quantum fields. Quantum fields are always fluctuating so there is still motion (time to you) of sorts

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

Hi, the dictionary definition of 'universe' is "everything that there is". This web sites articles and most top scientists seem to keep referring to the big bang and the universe as one and the same thing. for example, statements like - "The universe started with the big bang". It is a huge assumption that the contents of the big bang are 'everything that is' ie the universe. There's absolutely no evidence to support this, I find it completely unscientific.

I see 2 distinct meanings - 'The contents of the Big bang' which is finite and the 'Universe' which is 'everything that there is', which must be infinite, and contain an infinite amount of separate 'contents of Big bangs' at various stages of evolution. I call this 'The Infinite' to distinguish it from the incorrect use of the word universe when only actually the contents of the Big bang were being discussed.

The contents of the Big bang consists of the 'observable contents' (incorrectly called the observable universe) and 'whole contents' (incorrectly called the whole universe) I'm saying incorrectly because it's wrong to assume the contents of the Big bang are 'everything that there is' ie the universe.

It's a great idea you've got, it's also central to my own personal theory of the universe. I occasionally see others also with similar ideas. In fact, if you want a laugh there's a lady over on 'live science' site who likens black holes to vacuum cleaners and goes on to say the bag eventually bursts. https://forums.livescience.com/threads/black-hole-life-span.2776/#post-12357

Not quite sure what you mean here especially since I think there's no such thing as time, only motion.

It may well be that as in the contents of the Big bang normal particles don't exist in black holes, only their associated quantum fields. Quantum fields are always fluctuating so there is still motion (time to you) of sorts

Real long duration time in a black hole since it has almost no movement.
Black hole Just a compression of empty void space that fluctuation needs and no movement or near none. JMO.
Time don't fly in a black hole because it isn't fun.
Been waiting 8 billion years for your next chess move, then it's my turn again

Always wondered what happened at the center of a black hole that has no gravity like the center of earth.
I wonder if it's another reason for a big bang when everything that is matter and energy exists inside 1 and it has a 0 gravity point in the middle. unstable?
I'm thinking infinite fluctuation continues with little notice of a big bang other than a tiny different energy balance after..

 

[David-J-Franks]

Real long duration time in a black hole since it has almost no movement.
Black hole Just a compression of empty void space that fluctuation needs and no movement or near none. JMO.
Time don't fly in a black hole because it isn't fun.
Been waiting 8 billion years for your next chess move, then it's my turn again

Always wondered what happened at the center of a black hole that has no gravity like the center of earth.
I wonder if it's another reason for a big bang when everything that is matter and energy exists inside 1 and it has a 0 gravity point in the middle. unstable?
I'm thinking infinite fluctuation continues with little notice of a big bang other than a tiny different energy balance after..

Yes, zero gravity at a point, but a point is infinitely small, so I don't think it'll have much effect. Maybe its internal disturbances become unstable, Maybe all its quantum fluctuations fluctuate in the same direction all at once for a brief moment (this is getting silly).

I liken it to a radioactive element which can be stable for 1000's of years and then suddenly disintegrates. I think that is due to all its internal perturbations suddenly moving in the same direction all at once. No other explanation as it's not due to external influences. All the quarks and gluons inside an atom are vibrating, the quarks have orbital movements and sometimes partially merge. There's a lot of movement inside an atom.

However, I think its more likely that black holes from a merging mixture of previous dead universes all collapse into each other and form 1 giant black hole. As the black hole gets bigger it may become unstable, just as large atoms become unstable, and explode forming a new universe. Or it could be triggered by the continual bombardment of incoming black holes. Or, as you have also previously suggested a collision of 2 almost universe size black holes. Again like a collision of 2 otherwise stable atoms in a collider.

There is a good video of a journey to the centre of a black hole by Paul Sutter on space.com https://www.space.com/into-a-black-hole-whats-inside.html

Have you been watching the thread -

Page 2 - Scientist calculates the 'sad, lonely' end of the universe

Page 2 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.

forums.space.com

rod is insisting the universe is going to expand forever - heat death - using the 2nd law of thermodynamics. In my post 28 there, I've given 2 reasons why the 2nd law will not expand the universe forever. I asked rod for his opinion, but no one has taken any notice or responded. See what you think please.

I like reading your posts (despite them appearing as riddles) as you are one of only a few who gets it that the universe is infinite with no beginning and no end and contains infinite other big bangs

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

Yes, zero gravity at a point, but a point is infinitely small, so I don't think it'll have much effect. Maybe its internal disturbances become unstable, Maybe all its quantum fluctuations fluctuate in the same direction all at once for a brief moment (this is getting silly).

I liken it to a radioactive element which can be stable for 1000's of years and then suddenly disintegrates. I think that is due to all its internal perturbations suddenly moving in the same direction all at once. No other explanation as it's not due to external influences. All the quarks and gluons inside an atom are vibrating, the quarks have orbital movements and sometimes partially merge. There's a lot of movement inside an atom.

However, I think its more likely that black holes from a merging mixture of previous dead universes all collapse into each other and form 1 giant black hole. As the black hole gets bigger it may become unstable, just as large atoms become unstable, and explode forming a new universe. Or it could be triggered by the continual bombardment of incoming black holes. Or, as you have also previously suggested a collision of 2 almost universe size black holes. Again like a collision of 2 otherwise stable atoms in a collider.

There is a good video of a journey to the centre of a black hole by Paul Sutter on space.com https://www.space.com/into-a-black-hole-whats-inside.html

Have you been watching the thread -

Page 2 - Scientist calculates the 'sad, lonely' end of the universe

Page 2 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.

forums.space.com

rod is insisting the universe is going to expand forever - heat death - using the 2nd law of thermodynamics. In my post 28 there, I've given 2 reasons why the 2nd law will not expand the universe forever. I asked rod for his opinion, but no one has taken any notice or responded. See what you think please.

I like reading your posts (despite them appearing as riddles) as you are one of only a few who gets it that the universe is infinite with no beginning and no end and contains infinite other big bangs

Yes the center of the black hole has got to be a strange place for sure.
It might hum along just fine until pretty much everything is in just 1 of them then a feedback loop and boom.

I did read rods heat death post.
I guess it's possible for a universe to start from nothing ,create a big bang and slowly die that way.
Only trouble i have with it is a starting point in the first place.
Onion skins was my thought on a new way the big bang could repeat forever.
big bang happens,nature of the universe expands it beyond connection,energy drops back to 0 in the now empty region, fluctuation creates new energy balance and new mass, it builds and is unstable.
Endless onion skin universe and just 1 of them.
Or the next one of these is unthinkable far away and never connected to ours.

Not really how i think the infinity is but another possible way it could be.

 

[IG2007]

We have discussed the matter of the Heat Death theory in the Cyclic Universe forum. We have come to the conclusion that perfect Heat Death is impossible as we can never reach Absolute Zero and it will take infinite amount of time reach it. And, as we will always have heat, the heat death theory is false.

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

We have discussed the matter of the Heat Death theory in the Cyclic Universe forum. We have come to the conclusion that perfect Heat Death is impossible as we can never reach Absolute Zero and it will take infinite amount of time reach it. And, as we will always have heat, the heat death theory is false.

I wonder though at some point in time. atoms, electrons,radiation all break down themselves and at some unthinkable length of time all we have is quark soup getting thinner and thinner.
Even with that it's hard to imagine a total loss of heat.

 

[IG2007]

I wonder though at some point in time. atoms, electrons,radiation all break down themselves and at some unthinkable length of time all we have is quark soup getting thinner and thinner.
Even with that it's hard to imagine a total loss of heat.

That's what I just said. It's impossible to reach absolute zero.

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

That's what I just said. It's impossible to reach absolute zero.

Maybe the fabric of space/time simply cant support everlasting heat decline and thinning and it really does come to an end in lack of a place to happen.
That is really heat death

 

[IG2007]

Maybe the fabric of space/time simply cant support everlasting heat decline and thinning and it really does come to an end in lack of a place to happen.
That is really heat death

Look, heat has existed, exists now, and will exist forever. Infinity is impossible to reach.

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

Look, heat has existed, exists now, and will exist forever. Infinity is impossible to reach.

Oh i agree it looks near impossible for heat death to really happen unless the universe itself runs out of steam somehow and looses it's ability to have time or space.

A sad fate for the universe but IMO we are just 1 universe and heat death won't happen when we run into our bubble friends all around us and expansion comes to a halt.
I figure we are 2/3 of the way to colliding since expansion is happening 2/3 faster and distant mystery galaxies are now starting to come into view at much older than our universe age.

 

[IG2007]

Oh i agree it looks near impossible for heat death to really happen unless the universe itself runs out of steam somehow and looses it's ability to have time or space.

A sad fate for the universe but IMO we are just 1 universe and heat death won't happen when we run into our bubble friends all around us and expansion comes to a halt.
I figure we are 2/3 of the way to colliding since expansion is happening 2/3 faster and distant mystery galaxies are now starting to come into view at much older than our universe age.

Well, being 20 billion lightyears ago doesn't mean that it is 20 billion years old. You have got to take the Hubble Constant (it's inconstant though) and check how far it's going and then only you can say how old it is.

I love the universe. It always amazes me.

 

[David-J-Franks]

We have discussed the matter of the Heat Death theory in the Cyclic Universe forum. We have come to the conclusion that perfect Heat Death is impossible as we can never reach Absolute Zero and it will take infinite amount of time reach it. And, as we will always have heat, the heat death theory is false.

I agree we can never reach absolute zero. Also what I find equally ridiculous is that people who advocate heat death are assuming that there's an infinite void into which the contents of our big bang can indefinitely expand into.

However, reaching absolute zero is not necessary for the heat death theory, all that's required is a non zero thermal equilibrium where no more useful work can be extracted. Quote from Wikipedia; -

"Heat death does not imply any particular absolute temperature; it only requires that temperature differences or other processes may no longer be exploited to perform work. In the language of physics, this is when the universe reaches thermodynamic equilibrium (maximum entropy)."

Heat death of the universe - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[IG2007]

I agree we can never reach absolute zero. Also what I find equally ridiculous is that people who advocate heat death are assuming that there's an infinite void into which the contents of our big bang can indefinitely expand into.

However, reaching absolute zero is not necessary for the heat death theory, all that's required is a non zero thermal equilibrium where no more useful work can be extracted. Quote from Wikipedia; -

"Heat death does not imply any particular absolute temperature; it only requires that temperature differences or other processes may no longer be exploited to perform work. In the language of physics, this is when the universe reaches thermodynamic equilibrium (maximum entropy)."

Heat death of the universe - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

What is the definition of useful work? There is no definition of it. That's a vague phrase

 

[David-J-Franks]

What is the definition of useful work? There is no definition of it. That's a vague phrase

Funny you should mention that as I was going to put in my post that at the end of the universe there won't be anyone around to extract any useful work. So In the context of the heat death, it's a useless definition.

There is a definition for useful work, it's not a vague phrase. Google 'useful work';-

"In thermodynamics, the exergy of a system is the maximum useful work possible during a process that brings the system into equilibrium with a heat reservoir, reaching maximum entropy.[1] When the surroundings are the reservoir, exergy is the potential of a system to cause a change as it achieves equilibrium with its environment. Exergy is the energy that is available to be used. After the system and surroundings reach equilibrium, the exergy is zero."

"The useful work of the chemical reaction occurring at constant temperature and pressure in the reversible conditions can be calculated through the change in the Gibbs function (5). When the interest is the useful work performed by the system in the environment(−wuseful)(−wuseful), then

−wuseful=−ΔrH+TΔrS=−ΔrG.−wuseful=−ΔrH+TΔrS=−ΔrG.E6
From eq. (6) it follows formally that the useful work of the reversible system in the environment is the sum of the enthalpy member (−ΔrH)(−ΔrH) and the entropy memberTΔrSTΔrS. In this connection it is interesting to discuss the various situations which arise in dependence on the relation between (−ΔrH)(−ΔrH) andTΔrSTΔrS.

Fromeq. (6) it follows, that for ΔrS>0ΔrS>0 the useful work in the environment exceeds(−ΔrH)(−ΔrH):−wuseful>−ΔrH−wuseful>−ΔrH. Therefore, the system must drag the thermal energy from the environment in the volume TΔrSTΔrS to perform useful work. What is the physical reason for thermal energy consumption? Why does the system consume thermal energy of volume TΔrSTΔrS neither more or less? How can two different contributions produce the same useful work?

The second case of ΔrS<0ΔrS<0 is also of interest. In this case −wuseful<−ΔrH−wuseful<−ΔrH and the system must evolve the part of reaction heat to the environment. Why cannot the system use the total reaction heat for useful work production if this energy is at its disposal? Why can the system transfer energy of volume TΔrSTΔrS and neither more or less to the environment?

The third case isΔrH=0ΔrH=0. Here the system can use only the thermal energy of the environment to produce useful work."

As you can see the term useful work is widely used in science.

Exergy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Useful Work and Gibbs Energy

Open access peer-reviewed chapter

www.intechopen.com

https://questioneverything.typepad.com/question_everything/2008/04/what-is-useful.html - FASCINATING READ IG!

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

Well, being 20 billion lightyears ago doesn't mean that it is 20 billion years old. You have got to take the Hubble Constant (it's inconstant though) and check how far it's going and then only you can say how old it is.

I love the universe. It always amazes me.

Galaxies of 48 by just has no possible answer in our universe that's only 14 by old and a few others from 30 by and up.
Only real solution i can think of is they are neighbor galaxies on the edge of that universe.
Maybe already in collision mode with our universe and we wont get to find out for another 10-15 by.
Odd also that dark flow in our universe points in the direction of them.
Probably each region of dark flow points to a neighbor universe. JMO
It might be a very grand universe that just keeps going full of universes forever.
The final frontier might not exist.(kirk was wrong). LOL

I agree the universe is wonderful to think about and we should be humble in our understanding of anything since everything we think we know is probably wrong.

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

Funny you should mention that as I was going to put in my post that at the end of the universe there won't be anyone around to extract any useful work. So In the context of the heat death, it's a useless definition.

There is a definition for useful work, it's not a vague phrase. Google 'useful work';-

"In thermodynamics, the exergy of a system is the maximum useful work possible during a process that brings the system into equilibrium with a heat reservoir, reaching maximum entropy.[1] When the surroundings are the reservoir, exergy is the potential of a system to cause a change as it achieves equilibrium with its environment. Exergy is the energy that is available to be used. After the system and surroundings reach equilibrium, the exergy is zero."

"The useful work of the chemical reaction occurring at constant temperature and pressure in the reversible conditions can be calculated through the change in the Gibbs function (5). When the interest is the useful work performed by the system in the environment(−wuseful)(−wuseful), then

−wuseful=−ΔrH+TΔrS=−ΔrG.−wuseful=−ΔrH+TΔrS=−ΔrG.E6
From eq. (6) it follows formally that the useful work of the reversible system in the environment is the sum of the enthalpy member (−ΔrH)(−ΔrH) and the entropy memberTΔrSTΔrS. In this connection it is interesting to discuss the various situations which arise in dependence on the relation between (−ΔrH)(−ΔrH) andTΔrSTΔrS.

Fromeq. (6) it follows, that for ΔrS>0ΔrS>0 the useful work in the environment exceeds(−ΔrH)(−ΔrH):−wuseful>−ΔrH−wuseful>−ΔrH. Therefore, the system must drag the thermal energy from the environment in the volume TΔrSTΔrS to perform useful work. What is the physical reason for thermal energy consumption? Why does the system consume thermal energy of volume TΔrSTΔrS neither more or less? How can two different contributions produce the same useful work?

The second case of ΔrS<0ΔrS<0 is also of interest. In this case −wuseful<−ΔrH−wuseful<−ΔrH and the system must evolve the part of reaction heat to the environment. Why cannot the system use the total reaction heat for useful work production if this energy is at its disposal? Why can the system transfer energy of volume TΔrSTΔrS and neither more or less to the environment?

The third case isΔrH=0ΔrH=0. Here the system can use only the thermal energy of the environment to produce useful work."

As you can see the term useful work is widely used in science.

Exergy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Useful Work and Gibbs Energy

Open access peer-reviewed chapter

www.intechopen.com

https://questioneverything.typepad.com/question_everything/2008/04/what-is-useful.html - FASCINATING READ IG!

I guess if life can endure and adapt, near useless energy values might be more than enough if life has forever to adapt.
We might see it as an end to the universe but a few life forms might see it as the real beginning.
I think as long as the big bang part can have planets or moons and doesn't tear itself into radiation or run out of space/time support then life might continue on forever is some format.

 

[Catastrophe]

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/09/030917072015.htm#:~:text=In%20the%20new%20model%2C%20the,emerging%20from%20a%20white%20hole.

 

[David-J-Franks]

I wonder though at some point in time. atoms, electrons,radiation all break down themselves and at some unthinkable length of time all we have is quark soup getting thinner and thinner.
Even with that it's hard to imagine a total loss of heat.

That sounds a lot like the Big Rip theory. This says that if dark energy and the expansion of the universe keeps accelerating, then the force of dark energy will eventually overcome all other forces including those which hold atoms together. So everything will be ripped apart.

And it's not at some unthinkable length of time away, it's only 22by away if true

Big Rip - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org