The Return of a Static Universe and the End of Cosmology

[SpeedFreek]

From here. <br /><br /><i> "We demonstrate that as we extrapolate the current LambdaCDM universe forward in time, all evidence of the Hubble expansion will disappear, so that observers in our "island universe" will be fundamentally incapable of determining the true nature of the universe, including the existence of the highly dominant vacuum energy, the existence of the CMB, and the primordial origin of light elements. With these pillars of the modern Big Bang gone, this epoch will mark the end of cosmology and the return of a static universe. In this sense, the coordinate system appropriate for future observers will perhaps fittingly resemble the static coordinate system in which the de Sitter universe was first presented." </i><br /><br />This article is intriguing, as it implies that far in the future (100 - 500 billion years) any observer will only be able to see their local gravity bound system - their local cluster of galaxies. Everything else will have expanded away past their viewable horizon. Their observable universe will be immense by that time, but empty outside of their local group.<br /><br />They would not be able to tell that the universe was expanding, or that there were any other galaxies apart from their own grouping. A species evolving during this time would have a very different idea of how the universe works than we have now - a far simpler picture.<br /><br />Aren't we lucky to be alive during an epoch where there is still evidence of the early universe, the expansion, and what it might become? <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[Boris_Badenov]

I'm a subscriber to the Big Crunch Theory <br /><br /><i> In physical cosmology, the Big Crunch is the hypothesis that the universe will collapse upon itself after its expansion eventually stops — a counterpart to the Big Bang. This hypothesis is the subject of much heated discussion.<br /><br /> </i> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#993300"><span class="body"><font size="2" color="#3366ff"><div align="center">. </div><div align="center">Never roll in the mud with a pig. You'll both get dirty & the pig likes it.</div></font></span></font> </div>

 

[ianke]

Very interesting paper speedy. The Big Bang (if remembered at all) would be some quaint thought of some long ago children's story with no real basis in fact. Reality is really relative as well. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[robnissen]

Very interesting. Many red dwarfs will still be around in a 100 billion years. If there are any civilizations now around any of those stars, they could perhaps still be there in 100 billion years. I don't think the big bang would be a myth though, myths seem to last a few thousand years, not millions and certainly not billions, all current knowledge about expansion would simply be gone.

 

[ajna]

Yet those who have evolved to be able to feel cosmic energy will know that what EM radiation tells them is not the whole story, while others will do the same as we've done with dark matter and dark energy (there must be something else here) and conclude what we know of reality in our precious time now. <br />Also, their local groups will still show signs of expansion. When we reach the observational limits set by our own light bubble will we then conclude that we are in a static universe because we can see no further? I must be missing something...

 

[SpeedFreek]

<font color="yellow"> Also, their local groups will still show signs of expansion. </font><br /><br />The metric expansion of space is only apparent outside of gravity bound systems like galaxy clusters. Where there is gravity at work the expansion doesn't occur. It is large empty voids between distant clusters where the expansion occurs.<br /><br />There is one caveat to the above - it is theorised that if the expansion continues then in a distant time (which might be considered the end of the universe!) all matter will be expanded apart, but this timescale is magnitudes higher than the one we are discussing.<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> When we reach the observational limits set by our own light bubble will we then conclude that we are in a static universe because we can see no further? I must be missing something... </font><br /><br />You misunderstand. This is not about our observable limit as much as it is about everything but our local group of galaxies having receded past that limit. Our observable limit is always growing, but if the expansion continues accelerating as it is there will come a time when all the objects that are receding from us will overtake the limit and become invisible. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[trumptor]

I think its very interesting. A civilization that may develop 100 billion yrs from now, may become far more advanced than we are and not be able to see our universe as we do, and will never know about the expansion and all the other galaxies that we can so readily see at this time.<br /><br />Unless there is a way to circumvent the speed of light barrier, they will never be able to know about the expansion. <br /><br />Now by the definition of universe, does this also mean that our present universe will actually become a bunch of new universes? Considering that there can be no contact between the various clusters since the SOL won't allow it each cluster would become a separate universe, right?<br /><br />Another thought that I had after reading that article is that while its easy for us to look at what may be lost to future stargazers, might there be older civilizations out there that hold secrets from billions of years ago that we may not be able to observe today? Might there have been more evidence out there pointing to yet a different view about the workings of the universe that we cannot see anymore at this time in the universe's life? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em><font color="#0000ff">______________</font></em></p><p><em><font color="#0000ff">Caution, I may not know what I'm talking about.</font></em></p> </div>

 

[alokmohan]

I think its very interesting. A civilization that may develop 100 billion yrs from now, may become far more advanced than we are and not be able to see our universe as we do, and will never know about the expansion and all the other galaxies that we can so readily see at this time. Advanced civilisation is too **** and bullstory now.<br />

 

[SpeedFreek]

<font color="yellow"> Advanced civilisation is too **** and bullstory now. </font><br /><br />Eh? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[robnissen]

I think he is saying (with a little bit of a language barrier), that future civilizations would look back on ancient civilizations, such as ours, as simple-minded and unscientific (which, is of course, our view of ancient civilizations). But we know something about the nature of the origen of the universe, that will be beyond their capability to know. Thus, they are too ****-sure and arrogant.

 

[SpeedFreek]

It would be nice to think that we might come up with a way to leave some clues to our observations of the universe for future civilisations (either simply out of an altruistic desire to help them, or through the egotistical need to show that we weren't so primitive and we knew more than they do!)<br /><br />How might this be achieved? What mechanism would be best suited to this task?<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[dragon04]

One bet is for us to be the ancestors of that future society. But 100 billion years? That's an incomprehensively long time.<br /><br />The only thing I know of that transfers data over geological time is the fossil record; fossils as old as an estimated 2.1Gy have been found. But that's only 2% of the required journey.<br /><br />Perhaps the most effective one of all is one that's still impossible. <br /><br />An unmanned spacecraft bearing critical knowledge such as the expansion of the Universe, if accelerated to the tiniest fraction short of <b>c</b> could be set on a course to "circumnavigate" the known Universe or for a sufficient time (relative to the ship) to allow 100 billion "non-relativistic" years to elapse before decelerating.<br /><br />In terms of ship time, a short enough time would elapse to not worry about decay of data, wtc.. The ultimate Time Capsule. Perhaps some sort of beacon could be designed to activate upon deceleration to sub-relative velocities<br /><br />But it's a big Universe, and even with a beacon announcing its presence, I think only the most serendipitous of circumstances would lead to the people 100 billion years from now learning that their Universe isn't what they thought it was.<br /><br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[trumptor]

I was thinking the same thing. If in 100 billion yrs some civilizations are still carrying the story about expansion and tell their children, "once there were billions of galaxies around that we could see through our telescopes" without any way to prove it and considering the information is billions of years old it will probably be considered a myth.<br /><br />It would also be interesting to see several of these civilizations communicating with each other and finding out that they share the same myth. There's an idea for a book, lol. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em><font color="#0000ff">______________</font></em></p><p><em><font color="#0000ff">Caution, I may not know what I'm talking about.</font></em></p> </div>