It is going to keep expanding and expanding faster and faster until all matter is ripped apart with unimaginable vast spaces and cold and dead?Is this the future of all existence?
No, such theory is debunked, hubble expansion rate is fake, bad science
>>16898554yes, but not in the way you think.https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hKdfReE0qds
>>16898556This board is like this:> Make a thread about an interest question that includes some scientific theory or fact.> Some guy answers: 'THAT IS FUCKING BULLSHIT ARE YOU FUCKING RETARDED??'
>>16898570because "everything going dark" is a popsci talking point, not consensus in academia, it is like hancock of cosmology, entertainment for the braindead
According to the most recent observations, the expansion rate is slowing down.So it will eventually bounce back and collapse to zero, and the cycle will begin anew.
>>16898573Dark energy and the 'Big Freeze' or 'Heat death of the universe' is actually the consensus right now.
>>16898574Source?
https://www.space.com/astronomy/dark-universe/the-expansion-of-our-universe-may-be-slowing-down-what-does-that-mean-for-dark-energy
>>16898580>>16898581
>>16898554Maybe, we aren't sure.
>>16898580DESI DR2 resultshttps://arxiv.org/abs/2503.14743https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reNicLW2vpYw(z) = -1 is cosmological constantw(z) > -1 is phantom dark enery and a big ripw(z) < 0.4 is big crunch (from memory, the number is around that) where the accelration of dark energy can not overcome the attractive force of the universes matter and the expansion reverse to become a contraction.The z horizontal axis is red shift, i.e. how far back in time and space the observed data is. The best fit right now is the universe starting with phantom energy, then crossing the magic -1 threshold (thought impossible) and declining on a trend towards a big crunch, though not there yet. Certainly throws a spanner in the works of a neat -1 cosmological constant model of dark energy. The full DESI DR3 results are due soon.
>>16898756Correction:w(z) < -1 is phantom dark enery and a big ripw(z) > -0.4 is big crunch (or near that)
>>16898554Maybe the links end up so weak, people in the afterlife just have to travel a warp tunnel to the end scene. Where all energy is broken down in a lit-up background and a singularity would eventually form.From an end scene here I saw a fast, large white wavefront sweep up the remains of the solar system.
>>16898762I meant the tunnel with the light at the end travels outside our universe to the center of our grouping (with all the other universes ending, so there's no discontinuity).
>>16898756maybe dark matter particles decay?
in an infinite or near infinite vacuum and void, if a bomb is detonated and its casing fragments off in all directions along with the gasses and other byproducts, does it go on forever (if there's no barrier to hit or breach)? does it retract eventually?
>>16898554i think in the end all matter in the universe will gravitate into a single point and burst into a new universe, maybe with new laws of physics too
>>16898860Yes the general response from particle people is that there is a hritho unknown complexity and a plethora of particle models could account for it. If you watch that youtube video the scientists fo through a few potential models. It's all at a very early stage though, many models could fit the data.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reNicLW2vpYNew particle models may also change how the DESI data is understood in terms of whether expansion is changing or slowing too.
>>16898554>It is going to keep expanding and expanding faster and faster until all matter is ripped apart with unimaginable vast spaces and cold and dead?Yes, for our universe at least. But keep in mind the Heat Death theory is just that: a theory. Although there is wide consensus on it by now, it relies on what we can observe right now and from the universe's past. It's not at all certain that the expansion of the universe will keep increasing forever. Maybe in X billion/trillion/quadrillion/etc. years, it might start to slow down, come to a halt entirely or maybe even begin to shrink again. Basically we're watching a race car accelerating and from that observation we infer that it will reach 1,000 km/s in a couple hours. Just because we can't see any slowing down of the universe's expansion RIGHT NOW doesn't mean this will never happen. Who knows?Changes in the speed of our universe's expansion have already happened in the past (early Big Bang), so there really isn't any reason to automatically assume they won't happen again.>Is this the future of all existence?Depends on whether our universe really is all of existence or whether other universes exist. Maybe in others the Hubble Constant is lower, balances itself out with gravitational attraction, or mabe is even negative. Alas, we will never know.
>>16898574>So it will eventually bounce back and collapse to zeroZero doesn't indicate collapse, zero is indicative of balance, negative is the indication of collapse.
>>16898894Lol the sass of that fawn
