The End of the Universe

Hi

Thanks, good answer RoadClosed :)

Still, I have difficulties to grasp the idea of an space expanding faster than the speed of light -
simply, because the word space limits my way of thinking.

I'd rather prefer another approach to the problem - using a metric, the mathematical "equivalence"
of a ruler. From this point of view the distance between two objects is growing because the metric changes.
The metric is one element, another is the description of "spacetime":
Nowadays, one uses a certain type of manifolds (under to fundamental assumption within general relativity
that spacetime indeed can be modelled in this way). One important property is that locally special relativity holds.
So, while locally nothing can "move faster than the speed of light", still the distance between objects can grow
faster than the speed of light from a global point of view (if you allow me to say this in such words...)
Fascinating, what kind of non-intuitive solutions non-linear equations can lead to (not only in the context of Einstein's equations!).

Quote:

---

And I'd be interested to know the theory behind the universe expanding at a rate faster than the speed of light.

---

Probably, RoadCloased can provide you with more explicit material, because general relativity
is not my area of specialty - but check the web for articles about (solutions to) Einstein's equation, where,
as much as I know, the de Sitter solution is one of the first showing a possible expanding universe,
where the distance (measured using the corresponding metric) between two objects can
grow "faster than the speed of light would allow."

Quote:

---

Surely matter can only travel at the speed of light, or it's defying basic physics?

---

As mentioned - due to the explicitly demanded property of local Lorentz covariance, the basic physics (e.g. special relativity)
is not violated. Thus, in the framework of general relativity a particular type of manifolds (called Lorentzian manifolds)
is used to describe spacetime.


back to the original topic ...

Quote:

---

Is there an end to the universe?

---

There is an intrinsic problem to this question:
If there is an end to the universe, how can we determine it? And, an end
does imply that there is a higher dimension available, in which we can say - "there is an end"
(example: a sphere - on the surface it is endless, in 3d, "there is an end").

So, to allow for general relativity and everything, spacetime is sufficient and there is no "fifth"-dimension.
Sure, string theory has 10 (or 11) dimension, but that a completely different story.


People can be happy that science cannot give a clear answer to everything - still, that does not
mean that other approaches (like ..creationists, intelligent design) are better -or worse.
In my opinion all theories are worth something if they try to be complete in itself...

Cheers :)

Well an interesting read to say the least. The end of the universe to time to god and religion and back again. If they found the end of the universe that means there is a restaurant there. Who all is with me? Well get reservations at the Restaurant at the end of the universe. (if you don’t get this post go look up Douglas Adams)

The answer is 101010 or 2A ;):D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sec_ware

People can be happy that science cannot give a clear answer to everything - still, that does not
mean that other approaches (like ..creationists, intelligent design) are better -or worse.

---

In my view, the fact that we struggle to come up with solutions to these kind of questions and problems give further strength to the argument for intelligent creation. Frankly, science flounders in this area and has never been able to disprove the creation theory, as is apparent just reading what has turned into a much longer thread than I ever imagined when I started it!

Much more learned people in both the scientific and theological fields than any of us have tried and failed to come up with anything conclusive, which surely speaks for itself. Something that's been as enduring as the bible in terms of its history and prophecies has to have something in it?

Either way, it's thrown up a lot of very interesting ideas here :p

Just came across this article, which makes interesting reading:

http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/18/9/3

That article definately makes for good reading however concentrates on the "Big Bang Theory" where as some people believe otherwise.

But definately a must read. Just get a glass of coke or some coffee, its quite a long one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moira

Agreed .... but there are people who illogically think the universe has no end, which cannot be the case if it began.

---

Careful. Words like "end" and "began" are tricky. If measurable time as we know it did not mathematically exist before the Big Bang... Or if there is no true "end" of the world...

We might say the same of people who believed in a flat earth: "It's so obvious! The earth has to end SOMEWHERE..." The problem is that "begin" and "end" are tricky and abstract. The universe may well have no "end" in the same way nobody can walk to the "end" of the earth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moira

I repeat, show me something in life that starts but doesn't end. By giving an event a start, by definition you're making it finite.

---

Background heat. :)

How about this for a theological critique. If everthing that has a start has an end, then doesn't that mean that Heaven itself will end? God did create both the heavens and the earth in Genesis. Consider a human soul. If our souls are immortal and forever, then that necessarily implies a forever-existing reserve of "blank souls", or else a regimen of reincarnation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moira

too many areas of our make-up that can't have been put there by evolution because they're not necessary traits for survival.

---

Consider some truly boneheaded choices in our evolution. Consider the eyes of mammals. Our retinas are backwards. We've got the supporting cells closer to the front of the eye than our light-receptors. If you were designing a light sensor, would you put the wiring and switchboard stuff BETWEEN it and where you expected the light to come from?

We know from psychological experiments that people are naturally inclined (dare I say, "hardwired") into seeing patterns, even where we know none exist or were intended to exist. Seeing Mother Theresa in a cinnanon roll or hearing voices from the plumbing aren't exactly ringing endorsements for a micromanaged universe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moira

In my view, the fact that we struggle to come up with solutions to these kind of questions and problems give further strength to the argument for intelligent creation.

---

Your view has been repeated billions of times in various situations throughout history, the vast majority of which we have since explained and are largely done struggling with. Why should it point to an interventionist designer now if it actually didn't back when thunder was Thor's hammer or when meat magically changed into maggots or when lodestones were controlled by spirits?

first off, i think a good book to add to the debate would be A Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel. I would admit that the writer tries to be unbiased but does a poor job at it. But he does do really good research and presents the science well. just throwing it out there

now onto the fun stuff

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Terr

How about this for a theological critique. If everthing that has a start has an end, then doesn't that mean that Heaven itself will end? God did create both the heavens and the earth in Genesis. Consider a human soul. If our souls are immortal and forever, then that necessarily implies a forever-existing reserve of "blank souls", or else a regimen of reincarnation.

---

God's pretty clear about all of this in revelations (if we're looking at His side of the story, assuming He has a side of the story, reminds me of a quote by a unicorn, I'll believe in you if you believe in me... anyway)
clickey
basically he is time, hmm, that changes up some arguments maybe, but once again, thats assuming u actually believe he's talking and the Bible isnt just some stuff people put together for fun (not likely but thats another debate with a lot of numbers and statistics). Also im not sure i understand your argument about an infinite number of souls. why must there be an innumerable amount if they are eternal? if the universe is finite and God is all knowing, then
wouldnt he make as many souls as he wanted for this earth to be populated? maybe i misunderstood

Quote:

---

Consider some truly boneheaded choices in our evolution. Consider the eyes of mammals. Our retinas are backwards. We've got the supporting cells closer to the front of the eye than our light-receptors. If you were designing a light sensor, would you put the wiring and switchboard stuff BETWEEN it and where you expected the light to come from?

---

i think it adds character ;) if u wanna get into bio, look at irreducibly complex machines and ask how evolution makes those. we find those all over at the subcellular level and further. or the sickening exactness of DNA conscription, how does evolution account for all the mechanisms coming together perfectly (1000's of 1000's of mechanisms) and it would fail if any one of a few 1000 were taken out. there have been a few arguments for a few of these ill concede, but there are to many to ignore it.

Quote:

---

We know from psychological experiments that people are naturally inclined (dare I say, "hardwired") into seeing patterns, even where we know none exist or were intended to exist. Seeing Mother Theresa in a cinnanon roll or hearing voices from the plumbing aren't exactly ringing endorsements for a micromanaged universe.

---

very true, we see patterns and order, much like the God of the Bible does if you ever research Him, though most people will only do the bare minimum to keep themselves from having to look to much further. its a scary thought having to recognize something bigger than urself. i could go into the psychology area but thats my older bros area of expertise and im not so good, so ill leave it.

Quote:

---

Your view has been repeated billions of times in various situations throughout history, the vast majority of which we have since explained and are largely done struggling with. Why should it point to an interventionist designer now if it actually didn't back when thunder was Thor's hammer or when meat magically changed into maggots or when lodestones were controlled by spirits?

---

im not sure i understand your point, it seems like all of your examples are examples of an intervening higher power. could you clarify?

of course all of this arguing/debating/conversing about religion isnt going to change anyones beliefs, so dont worry, no matter what our conclusion is you wont have to change yours, only you and God can do that :)

hope i stirred some minds :)

Firstly Terr, a flat earth would have an end because it would have a beginning. A round earth doesn't have an end, true .... but it doesn't have a beginning either. Your background heat isn't a very good example either, because if it starts by switching the central heating on, then it'll eventually end when you switch it off. If it's there all the time, what's to say it won't continue for ever?

I agree with Godsrock37, your examples are making the case for a higher power rather than the opposite. And I wonder where you get this from?

Quote:

---

Your view has been repeated billions of times in various situations throughout history, the vast majority of which we have since explained and are largely done struggling with

---

I'm sorry but nobody has been able to prove that God doesn't exist - and far more learned people than you or I have tried over the centuries. Mathematicians, theologians, scientists ..... too many highly intelligent people believe in creation for anyone to be arrogant enough to simply dismiss it as a fairy tale. If the bible was little more than that, how come it's been so enduring, so widely read and caused so much debate? No other book has ever done this - and remember we're talking about something written a long time ago, when the human race was a whole lot less sophisticated. And we still can't dismiss it!

Just like nobody has yet managed to make animated life out of inanimate matter - surely the whole argument for evolution.