Talk:Ultimate fate of the universe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Physics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article is on a subject of Mid importance within physics.

Help with this template This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article. Feel free to add your name to the participants list and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.
News On 21 December 2007, Ultimate fate of the universe was linked from Slashdot, a high-traffic website.
All prior and subsequent edits to the article are noted in its revision history.

Contents

[edit] Rewrite the article

This page needs a major rewrite IMO. Currently the is no mention of general relativity, no clear distinction between a flat, open, closed, universe. No mention of any experimental evidence. I'd do it myself only I'm not really all that confident on my own knowledge. Are there any cosmologists out there? Theresa knott 10:02 Apr 1, 2003 (UTC)

Since no one seems to update this page since April, I rewrote it hoping to do a better job. Of course I take full responsability for it :-)) At18 22:10, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Notes

  1. mentioning End_of_Time_(Chrono_Trigger) in the begginning seems completely unnecessary to me. the topic names aren't even similar enough for any mistake to ever occur.
  2. the first sentence is a bit tautological, I think
  3. almost no mention of the Anthropic Principle (I don't believe in it, but it's worth mentioning in this wikipedia entry)

01.11 (UTC) 1 Jan, 2004

Well it seems that End of Time redirects here.Dieboybun 05:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The immortal eschatologist

Note: The author uses the word "detach," but what he really means is that over a long enough period of time all orbiting bodies, whether they be planets orbiting a sun, or the stars of a galaxy orbiting the center of the galaxy, will become involved in gravitational interactions with each other that will either cause them to collide and merge with each other, or be slung out of the system. The best way to demonstrate this effect is to "play God" using one of the orbit simulators you can find on the Internet, i.e., build your own solar system. You'll be amazed at how difficult it is to put an object into a stable, long-lasting orbit.

Most cosmologists currently believe that the universe is flat or open. That means that that the time that there will be warmth and light (and life) in the universe is a brief moment, followed by an inconceivably long cold darkness in which every atom will be light-years away from every other atom: a horrible freezing darkness in which nothing will ever happen again. You better think twice before wishing you could live forever. [Rick Gauger, Dec 5, 2003]

How illogical, Rick. One can hardly live forever with one's atoms separated by light years of "horrible freezing darkness", can one? So what link do you imagine between the two ideas? Moreover, an open universe doesn't mean that atoms will start flying apart—where did you get that idea? And finally, even if one could potentially live forever one could always "opt out" after, say, 1012 years when most of the excitement is over. The ability to live forever seems definitely attractive to me.
—Herbee 22:54, 2004 Mar 25 (UTC)
Since your criticism is a logical one: "wishing you could live forever"≠"potentially liv[ing] forever"
You have no potential of ever being granted a wish because wishes don't exist outside of stories. If wishes did exist they would be like in a story. They would be absolute (not bound by physics) unless undone by another wish (and will probably also backfire on you). In any case either your body stays whole enough to keep you living or you mind exists without it. Assuming then you have more than one wish (a big assumption) the point becomes you better think twice before using your last wish. The reason I bother to say this is when I first read about this theory I considered that very wish and thought here is a reason to appreciate mortality. Those are surprisingly hard to find.
In other words I thought Rick's (10 word) point was appropriate.
Talnova 06:16, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The point is that the idea of an inconceivably long, horrible freezing darkness with every atom light-years away from every other atom is ridiculous. Go scare some 3-year olds, Rick. Immortality may or may not seem attractive to anyone, but rejecting it based on Rick's misconceptions would be premature.
And what do you mean, wishes don't exist outside of stories? I have hundreds of them. Want to borrow a few?
—Herbee 11:20, 2005 May 9 (UTC)
By wishes not existing I meant a magical wish that is granted not just a desire that may be fulfilled by technology (I'd freeze myself and come out once in a while, or perheps genetic engineering). Of course a mortal with an extra long lifespan can be killed or "opt out" but that is not immortality. I can see this as an ironic end to someone who was magically granted immortality but I'm not sure what Rick meant by 'wishing'.
--Talnova 10:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WMAP

Shouldn't mention be made of WMAP and it's implications? I don't know enough about the subject so I can't add it, I'm afraid. Dysprosia 08:00, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Broken link

The link http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0302506 at the bottom of the page does not work. Acces not granted.

[edit] Separation of church and science

I find the (albiet brief) overview of religous theories and the implication that they exist at the same level of credibility as the scientific view to be inappropriate and offensive to science in general. Superstition has no place in any serious discussion involving physics. -Anon

Are you talking anbout this sentenceMany religions have postulated an end to the Universe, for example as part of an Apocalypse ordained by God; see the article on eschatology for more discussion of these issues. This article is about scientific theories of the end of the Universe in the absence of such an event. ? I can't say I agree with you. It looks quite reasonable to me. Perhaps If I remove the last 7 words it'll be more NPOV. theresa knott 09:13, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Frankly, it's ridiculous that the so-called religious POV is included in this article. Religion has absolutely no insight to offer into this topic. Religion states the world was created in 7 days. Need I say more! Could someone remove the religion nonsense from this feature? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.213.242.101 (talk) 05:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Douglas Adams

"This article is about scientific theories of the end of the Universe" - ...and that includes Douglas Adams? I'm sure he would have liked to be taken more seriously than all religions combined, but I can't see any way that discussions about the Hitchhiker's Guide fits into this page (other than as a quick reference to the main article about the books).

I agree, some of the material was rather tangential (particularly the Discworld reference. Perhaps in time there will be more closely related examples in popular culture. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 23:44, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Canonical ordering?

I'm a bit puzzled by the relocation of the Further reading section... as I understand it, the usual ordering is as follows:

  • Article
  • See also
  • External links
  • Further reading
  • References

This order more or less reflects the potential availability of the various documents and the likelihood they will be consulted immediately. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 23:39, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Time expanding

This is getting really annoying. Every article I see on physics, it talks about time expanding!! TIME DOES NOT EXPAND! IT IS NOT A PHYSICAL ENTITY!!!

Whoa, calm down, Scorpionman, and apply some common sense—or better still, some elementary physics, philosophy or logic (either will do). For if time is not a physical entity, as you maintain, how can you be sure it doesn't expand? Wouldn't that take some kind of measurement? And wouldn't the ability to measure it make it a physical entity, after all?
—Herbee 11:46, 2005 May 9 (UTC)
I've never heard of time "expanding" but "time dilation" is kosher relativity talk. I still don't know what "time expanding" means but I hesitate to deem it out of bounds. And I rather like the point just made that while time is indeed not material (it's one of the four dimensions of that abstraction we call spacetime), any means of measuring elapsed time requires a device made of matter and very much governed by physical laws.132.181.160.42 05:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Time is a dimension of the universe much like the other 3 spatial dimensions. Expansion therefore refers to a warping or extension of some part of that dimension. It is a physical 'entity', even if it's not something you can see or touch. And if you accept Big Bang theory, it wasn't just matter that began to rapidly expand at one point, but spacetime itself. Therefore, for the spacetime universe to be expanding, that includes time. Just because a concept is difficult to understand in lay terms doesn't mean it's not scientific or plausible. 220.236.186.14 11:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quantum deaths

No mention of the possible end caused by the quantum tunnelling of the vacuum of space into a final, lower energy state, thus annihilating the fabric of space time and all the matter in it, in a bubble of nothingness expanding out from a random point within the universe.

Well, the universe wouldn't technically end in that event, but everything inside would be destroyed. As I recall, the low-energy bubble is preceded by a sort of shock wave consisting of the energy difference between the energy levels, compounded across distance. The whole thing would be over in less than a minute or so; suddenly this intense wave of gamma rays would come screaming out of nowhere, followed by the edge of the energy transition. Perhaps it should be discussed in a different article. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 15:19, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
I suppose it should be discussed at Vacuum#The quantum-mechanical vacuum. Isn't the proper name for this vacuum decay? ~~ N (t/c) 16:20, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Observational evidence supporting ideas

The QSS and plasma cosmology models are considered by mainstream scientific consensus to be models that are not as fully supported as the Big Bang model which is the one considered most in concordance with current observations. As such, it is appropriate to list these ideas as not in concordance with current observations. --Joshuaschroeder 21:17, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Obvious Bias in this Article

This article is obviously bias. It says nothing of Christian Eschatology or other Religious eschatology, for that matter, just Scientific humanist theories.Though it is grouped in that category, which it is not worthy of. I support NPOV and the only way to show or express this is by point and counterpoint with both sides being taken. This article should be revised, or be deleted, because it sure doesn't fit into the Neutral point of view policy. All I ask is that you show religious points, whether they be Christian or Non-Christian or the both of them. Эрон Кинней 11:32, 27 November 2005 (UTC)


No.
=) -Silence 12:12, 27 November 2005 (UTC)


To clarify: the reason this article doesn't have, and never will have, any viewpoint that does not have any scientific or evidential support, is because this is an article about the ultimate fate of the universe, a subject in cosmology. It is not an article about common beliefs regarding the ultimate fate of the universe, a subject in history, psychology and sociology.
The reason that religious views are irrelevant to the page is the same reason that we don't list out-of-date, archaic theories of the universe's end from hundreds or thousands of years ago: because they're universally not accepted by modern experts in the field, and thus are of value to study only to help understand human history, society, and thought processes, not to help study the universe itself, as this article does.
NPOV requires that we present all significant views in articles: this is why we have articles on eschatology, apocalypse, ragnarok, armageddon, the Last Judgment, etc. But NPOV does not say that we need to act as though a nonscientific theory is a scientific theory, when it clearly and demonstrably isn't. This is also why evolution, a subject in biology, does not offer "the other side" in the form of intelligent design, and why origin of the universe, another subject in cosmology, redirects to Big Bang instead of Genesis, and why heart, a subject in anatomy, deals exclusively with biological mechanisms, completely ignoring theories that once dominated the land regarding the heart being the seat of emotion, love, the soul, and any number of other things, which are now debunked (though still a common facet of popular culture and fantasy and spirituality and so on—which is why other articles exist to explore those topics regarding the "heart", like heart (symbol) and soul and love, out of the way of the immediately relevant issue of the heart as a vitally important scientific topic), and which thus need not be mentioned alongside genuine, substantiated, falsifiable (but unfalsified), observationally and experimentally reproducible scientific theories to adhere perfectly to NPOV.
The reason science is typically a subject discussed before cultural and psychological issues like religious beliefs, is not only because science is a much more solid, more consistent, vastly more valuable and useful construct for saving and improving human lives, but also because humans are a very tiny, tiny, tiny little piece of the universe, and while eschatology deals with what various humans have thought at various times about the end of times, the ultimate fate of the universe in cosmology deals with the end of times itself, directly, which is a topic far vaster and more horrifyingly inevitable than whatever interesting, but unsupportable, stories we have made up over the millennia.
Which is not to say that science is infallible (just the opposite, science is defined by its fallibility, that's the only reason we can trust it!), or that the theories presented on the "ultimate fate of the universe" are definite, absolute facts, the undeniable Truth. Rather, they're the best idea we have of how, based on all that we've seen of the universe thus far, the universe will probably end. They're the most likely scenarios we've yet devised based on all we've seen in the world, the possibilities most substantiated and supported by our observations of the universe itself. This is not to say that a religious belief can't be scientifically valid (and many religions accept the theories presented on "ultimate fate of the universe", and most don't outright oppose them), merely that the ones that currently aren't shouldn't be treated as such. :) Popularity among the masses has nothing to do with scientific validity—remember the lesson of Galileo.
And, not to editorialize (OK, just a wee bit :f), but really, religion isn't here to tell us about the universe. It's here for the same reason stories, poetry, art, and music are here: to help us deal with living in this world, and to help us better understand ourselves. Such matters are about us, fundamentally; science is, as best it can conceivably manage, not just about us, about what we believe and wish for and dream of, despite being a human construct. Just as religion is a lens we have turned inwards, science is a lens we have turned outwards, and while the picture we currently have may not be perfect, it is at least looking outwards, where the universe is. The universe is outwards. Thus, while religious speculation and fantasizing might be of immediate relevance in an article about the soul, scientific theories and hypotheses are of the most immediate concern in an article about the universe.
Does that answer your question? -Silence 12:52, 27 November 2005 (UTC)


Partly, yes. But the article's title gives no indication that the source of the information and the content thereof is supposed to be scientific. When I read the article's title, I thought that it would supply all possibilities, not just one, because the title is the "fate of the universe" in-general, not the "scientific fate pf the universe". I don't believe religious theories are archaic, and I also believe that scientists and experts "in the field" are the only ones to be trusted on the subject matter, because the job of a neutral encyclopedia is to provide all possibilities, not to pick and choose its positions and define them however it pleases. However, you did make several good points, even so, I will not retract my position. My point being, the title does not hint in any way whatsoever that this article is solely scientific. It is a general title. Эрон Кинней 23:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

When I read the article's title, I thought that it would supply all possibilities - If this article supplied "all possibilities" on the end of the universe, it would be billions of pages long, rather than the much more reasonable 7 pages long it is now. "Ultimate fate of the universe" is a vital scientific field just as much as the "beginning of the universe" was, thus people searching for either should be assumed to be looking for information on what really are the beginning and end of the universe, rather than stories and historical beliefs about either. Wikipedia notability standards require that only the most prominent theories regarding the ultimate fate of the universe among experts in the end-of-the-universe-field be addressed, not "every possibility". Also, we risk accusations of holding a double standard when we require a scientific article, "ultimate fate of the universe", to address unsubstantiated and arbitrary religious beliefs, but don't require eschatology to list scientific theories and rebuttals; if there was no term called "eschatology", I'd understand having a section on it here out of necessity, but the fact that a specific field exists for the end of the universe in religion and religious philosophy makes listing it again (in any greater depth than the link already provided at the top of this article's page) just redundant. Anyone familiar with the field can just search for that rather than bothering to come to this page, and anyone unfamiliar with it will immediately become familiar with it when it's defined at the top of this article. An eloquently simple solution.
, not just one, - "Not just one"? How on earth could you read this article and think it only discusses "one possibility", when there are clearly almost a dozen possibilities mentioned within this article? Just because they're all scientific (i.e. supported by something more than just "X is true because Y says it's true!", where X is an assertion and Y is an (often imaginary) authority figure) possibilities doesn't mean they're all the same thing; in fact, a large number of them are direct opposites of one another. :)
because the title is the "fate of the universe" in-general, not the "scientific fate pf the universe". - This doesn't make any sense to me. We have a scientific article on heart, not an article called scientific heart despite many religious beliefs on the heart (the seat of emotion!). We have a scientific article on childbirth, not an article called scientific childbirth despite many religious beliefs regarding childbirth (yay souls!). We have a scientific article on flood, not an article called scientific flood despite many religious beliefs regarding floods (GOD IS ANGRY >:(). Surely, just as the theories based in reality (a.k.a. "scientific" ones) are more central to those articles, they're also much more central to this article, since the article is actually directly about the "ultimate fate of the universe", not "beliefs in many different cultures throughout history regarding the ultimate fate of the universe"; although people are necessarily the conduit through which we learn about and source the various theories presented in this article, this article isn't about people any more than absolutely necessary. It's about "the ultimate fate of the universe".
I don't believe religious theories are archaic, - I don't either. But most religious beliefs aren't theories. :) (And the ones that are usually came from the other way around: a scientific theory being reinterpreted as a religious belief, rather than vice versa.) They're unsubstantiated speculation. Thus, their encyclopedic value is from a sociological perspective (analyzing what people think about what is there, as best we can), not a scientific one (analyzing what really is there, as best we can).
and I also believe that scientists and experts "in the field" are the only ones to be trusted on the subject matter, - Why not? A scientist's theory can be immediately disproved, if false, by putting it to the same test that was used to support the original hypothesis. A nonscientific, purely religious work cannot; it must either be taken up on faith alone, or rejected. Thus, while there is a consistent, near-universally-accepted methodology (the scientific method) that makes scientific theories infinitely more valuable and reliable in understanding the universe than religious doctrine, there is no such thing for religious beliefs—nothing at all, no test or experiment or logic, to distinguish them from delusions or fabrications. So we report on religious beliefs based solely on their historical and sociological value (in articles like eschatology), not based on judgment calls regarding their scientific validity; there is no "validity" to judge, after all. :) This is nothing new, I'm afraid; Britannica, and every other reliable secular reference work in history (and Wikipedia is a secular work, I'm sorry to say, as it has no spiritual or religious affiliations), has done the same. Similarly, these works have all relied on the "experts" you seem to have such disdain for, people who have spent their entire lives studying likely (not just possible) ways for the universe to end; so shall we.
because the job of a neutral encyclopedia is to provide all possibilities, - Nope. Only the most significant ones, and only in their proper encyclopedic context. Just as a science textbook wouldn't mention "Intelligent Design" (only a book dealing with the controversy stirred up by religious fundamentalists reacting to valid scientific theories) and a history textbook wouldn't mention the Ascension of Jesus to Heaven (except as an important belief in history), an encyclopedia wouldn't treat religious theories as being in any way equivalent to, comparable to, or remotely related to modern, accepted scientific theories. The one is included in an encyclopedia to understand humankind, and the other is included in an encyclopedia to understand the laws of the universe.
not to pick and choose its positions - It has to "pick and choose" between the positions presented, on two standards: (1) notability, else we'd end up with countless trivial and absurd possibilities; (2) significance and relationship to the field in question (in other words, putting all information into its proper field of study), else we'd end up with Noah's Ark and other myths littering the flood page before we've even yet established a flood's physical properties! In the same way, the currently-accepted physical properties of the end of the universe are infinitely more relevant to this article than the various beliefs regarding the end of the universe throughout history.
and define them however it pleases. - We don't define anything "how we please", we define them how they're most commonly defined. (And most accurately, of course; for example, if a large number of laypeople think that the sun isn't a star, it doesn't make the sun any less a star, as long as the definitions of those two words remain the same.)
However, you did make several good points, even so, I will not retract my position. My point being, the title does not hint in any way whatsoever that this article is solely scientific. It is a general title. - Correct. And science is the general study of everything in reality; you really can't get much more general than science. It is through science that even religion is studied, via the sciences of history and sociology (of course, that relies on a loose definition of "science", but it's not a completely invalid one, as academic study of the natural world and of history have a thousand times more things in common with one another than study of history, which is still based on objective analysis of facts, and religion, which is based on dogma and arbitrary belief). To argue that the scientific perspective is just "one perspective" rather misses the point, and would be much like arguing "the encyclopedic perspective is just one perspective!" Being encyclopedic requires treating all matters with a scientist's neutral and dispassionate presentation, organization, and analysis of information. But I'm digressing again, I think; let me try to explain this matter with an analogy.
Look at the heart article. It discusses the physical properties of the heart. It discusses the current, widely-accepted scientific theories regarding how the heart works and what its function is, mentions all relevant facts and terminology. It never once addresses the cultural, religious, or spiritual significance of the heart, except for a single line to mention its symbolic meaning, and a disambiguation line at the top of the page. This is because the heart, being a major scientific subject (though, in many ways, it's tremendously less important in science than "end of the universe", since it deals solely with a single organ in various organisms on a single tiny planet in the middle of a vast universe, whereas the "end of the universe" is significantly broader and more universally relevant in scope :)), should first and foremost be discussed in terms of actual scientific analysis and observation of it, not in terms of unsubstantiated human beliefs in various cultures and historical periods. This is not POVed; this is the foundation of NPOV and NOR: presenting all relevant views in their appropriate contexts without weighing in on any (which is why Wikipedia takes no stance on ultimate fate of the universe regarding which of the many theories it presents is true), rather than acting like every belief, no matter how trivial or disproven by experts in the concerned fields, is the same. To act like they are the same is distortion, not neutrality. -Silence 21:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello there! This seems to be where all the "religious" discussion is, so i just thought i'd mention that i changed the word "story" to "narrative" in the religion section in order to make it sound slightly more academic. 24.147.136.145 19:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

      • "I don't believe religious theories are archaic" - Religious theories aren't archiac, they are pure gibberish and nonsense. The earth is 6,000 years old and was created in 7 days. What complete twaddle. Please keep religious nonsense out of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.213.242.101 (talk) 05:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
So you have strong views on religion. Fine. Please don't insult other users or clog up the page with this, post it in a forum or elsewhere. And please sign your name, don't force an auto-sign with just an IP. I don't want to have to call you 76.213.242.101.Eebster the Great (talk) 21:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Confusion over the geometry of space and space-time curvature

There appears to be some confusion over the geometry of space and space-time curvature as defined in Einstein General Theory of Relativity. General Relativity holds. Space-time is curved. The ultimate fate of the universe is a combination of space-time curvature and rate of expansion. The geometry of space being held to be "nearly" flat, NOT exactly flat has nothing to do with space-time being curved which it is. Einstein's theory of general relativity holds strong today or your GPS system wouldn't work neither would your Sirius satellite radio.

Explanation from University of Chicago:

Is space flat or curved? I've heard both.
There is an important distinction between "space" and "spacetime," and also a distinction between exact statements and useful approximations. Our universe is a four-dimensional spacetime -- to describe the location of an event, you need to specify three coordinates of space and one of time. According to Einstein, spacetime can be curved, and gravitation is the manifestation of that spacetime curvature. Since there is certainly gravity in the universe, there is no question that the universe is curved. But for cosmological purposes it is useful to model spacetime as a three-dimensional space expanding as a function of time; then the total curvature is a combination of the curvature of space by itself, plus the expansion of the universe. Observations indicate that space by itself is very nearly flat, rather than having an overall positive or negative curvature (see the expanding universe); that is the origin of the statement that we live in a "flat universe." Of course this is only an approximation, since the real world features galaxies and voids in large-scale structure, rather than perfect smoothness; but it's a good approximation. So "space" is (approximately) flat, while "spacetime" is definitely curved.--http://pancake.uchicago.edu/~carroll/cfcp/primer/faq.html#curved

--Voyajer 05:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Another helpful explanation is given here although I cannot vouch for the source which is unknown to me, but the explanation is correct:

As I mentioned above, a "flat" universe can [and will] still have a curved spacetime. Just imagine a simple three-dimensional model for the four-dimensional universe. Each spacelike slice will be a flat sheet with some galaxies marked on it, and in each successive sheet the galaxies will be in the same relative positions, but with a larger distance scale. Now imagine the worldlines of cosmological observers, each of which threads through all the images of a particular galaxy. The way things work for a flat universe is that high in the stack [i.e. at late times] each of the worldlines is pretty much vertical, but as you go back towards the Big Bang they curve towards each other, and eventually intersect at the initial singularity. The fact that worldlines that are parallel at late times intersect as you follow them back in time shows that spacetime isn't flat even if the spacelike slices are, because each of the worldlines is a geodesic of the spacetime and parallel geodesics can only intersect in the presence of curvature.--http://www.culturelist.org/cdr/article.cfm?id=92

--Voyajer 06:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, when Einstein invented General Relativity and invented the spacetime curvature, he did so knowing that the ultimate fate of the universe (whether it would be expanding or contracting) was involved in the formulas. He was trying to prove in general relativity that spacetime was curved while at the same time inventing a cosmological constant to prove that the geometry of space itself was exactly flat and static. So he understood the geometry of space to be flat and static when he invented spacetime curvature. These are two different things.--Voyajer 06:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite

I've just gone through the article and rewritten it; hopefully noone has any objections to what I've done, if so air them here. I would like to see the stuff on the open, flat and closed universes moved elsewhere (i.e. shape of the universe), with the stuff in that section about the end of the universe moved into the appropriate theory sections, but decided against going that far with this edit. Maybe I'll do it at some later point in time. Mike Peel 14:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The fate of the universe is intimately tied to its flatness; that information definitely belongs here, along with information about the cosmological constant. --Christopher Thomas 15:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Let me assert at the outset: I am neither physicist nor mathematician. I love cosmology but am and will always be a bleacher bum. Hence I have no business holding strong views about the content of this entry. But I do have an opinion about the general way it was written, and I immediately concluded it had capabilities of improvement. The entry I found was shabby in a way that is all too common in Wikipedia entries on learned subjects: clumsy repetitive use of the English language. And so in complete ignorance of what Mike Peel says he did 24 hours ago, I heavily edited the scientific core of the article. My work is not intended to repair errors and omissions, and I urge others to step in that breach. I also added references to Barrow & Tipler, Tipler, Dyson, and Penrose, all books I am happy to own.
Unrelated opinion. When Fred Hoyle was riding high in the saddle, doing justice to cosmology meant writing things that did not sit well with what I call Middle Eastern Monotheism. But those days are gone. The Big Bang and the subsequent unfolding of our universe of ever growing complexity is wholly consistent with monotheism. The Big Crunch is broadly consistent with Christian eschatology. Freeman Dyson's official biography reveals that he is a proud Presbyterian. Hence I see no reason why any mainstream religious person should take offense at this entry and its limited mission. 202.36.179.65 22:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Big rip

I've altered this section of the article to be consistent with what's presented at Big Rip. In particular, several claims seem to have exhibited poetic license. In particular, elementary particles can't be "torn apart", only bound systems of particles, and a "big rip" scenario doesn't necessarily involve reaching an infinite rate of expansion within a finite length of time (just an ever-increasing rate). I'd also expect quarks to never become un-bound (new quark/antiquark pairs appear when a bond is stretched sufficiently), and to see very interesting phenomena resulting from the Unruh effect, but I'm not going to aggressively edit about these without citations (especially for the latter). --Christopher Thomas 08:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


EXCUSE ME : (annonomous user) about there being a big rip, it is possible. however may i remind you that gravity is ever present no matter how far apart distance is between two objects their gravity may be small between eachother, but they will STILL affect eachother. so theoretically a big rip is IMPOSSIBLE. if we knew where the furthest planet/star/galaxy/any object from our earth was, we could say with confidence that our earth and that object both have gravitational effects on eachother, even if it's exponentially microscopic, its still there. so no matter how far apart the galaxies spread, eventually we will slow down and the galaxies will have to have SOME gravitational effect, so whatever the closest galaxy is, and wherever it is, they, along with us, will start to get pulled toward the center of the universe where the big bang began, and eventually we will collide with that galaxy and become one hitting multiple other galaxies until finally, we will be combined with everything in existance into one big super stellar object. thats what is "the big crunch". the "big rip" is impossible. sorry i know i sound like im babbleing senslessly and talking with no actual outline to what im saying but i just had to get this info out there. and also plz forgive my horrible spelling and grammer. -- (Unsigned) 23:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Any changes you see to your work are NOT due to my disagreeing with the content of what you wrote, but to the way you expressed it. If the way things now stand does not do justice to your thinking, feel free to edit what I have done. Think of me as your anonymous copyeditor!202.36.179.65 22:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Gravity does NOT affect objects outside of the observable universe. In Newtonian physics, gravity had an instant effect, such that if the Sun somehow ceased to exist (quantum tunneling?), the Earth immediately would be flung from its orbit. Now, however, we know that is not the case, and instead accept Einsteinian (Relativistic) physics, in which gravity moves (propogates) at the speed of light (as do photons (light) and gluons (the strong force)); the Earth is flugn from its orbit about 8 minutes later, once the 'gravity wave' has reached us. Since gravity moves only at the speed of light, we literally have exactly 0 attraction to objects outside of the observable universe, because their gravity simply hasn't reached us yet, and if the universe continues to expand at this rate, it never will. If the universe continues to accelerate, objects previously in our observable universe will continue to move out of it, and thus we will no longer be gravitationally (or otherwise) attracted to them.Eebster the Great (talk) 22:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


Anybody think that the universe, has retension, and that the rate of expansion will decelerate, until it slows down, and turns into the big crunch? sort of like the exploding ball screensaver on windows XP. Please explain any errors in my thoughts, and please watch the language. OMGitsCTC 04:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Retention is at least theoretically a possibility, in a sense a negative cosmological constant that counteracts dark energy over even larger distances. However, at least at the scale of the universe now, dark energy must far outweigh any universal retention, and drives the expansion of spacetime to continue to accelerate. This acceleration could change eventually, but the rate of this change of acceleration (I think the appropriate change is jerk) would have to be very small if it exists at all. There isn't yet any evidence of its existance. Also, the universe could go through a cataclysmic change (such as in a case of vacuum decay), which could change or even reverse current trends.Eebster the Great (talk) 22:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


I made some spacing and signiture changes here to attempt to make it legible. One comment in particular had eight time signitures, so I pared it down to just one. I also want to answer a few questions posed here, which answers I posted in the appropriate places.Eebster the Great (talk) 22:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Early philosophical views section"

The following text was removed:

==Early philosophical views== The [[monotheism|monotheistic]] [[religion]]s that emerged in the [[Middle East]] posit that the universe began a finite time ago, as the result of an act of divine will called the [[Creation]]. These religions also have [[eschatology|eschatological]] beliefs about the ultimate fate of at least the [[Earth]] and the [[Solar System]], if not the entire universe. On the other hand, [[Aristotle]] and other writers in the classical tradition held that the universe was eternal and unchanging. Before [[Einstein]] and his [[general relativity]], the modern science that emerged with [[Copernicus]] and [[Galileo]] gave little thought to the origin and ultimate fate of the universe. No one had any idea of what possible theory or evidence could be brought to bear on questions of this nature.

There are a number of problems with this: first is admits a very narrow bias in what it describes as "early" -- only Western, (mono)theistic and proto/early scientific ideas about this. I don't think that we need to talk about such views since they are subject to a different article on eschatological beliefs. It would be nice to have a clearinhouse about them just as we do origin beliefs, but I don't think this article is the appropriate venue. --ScienceApologist 15:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Interesting new observation about the fate of the universe.

I have come across an interesting answer to the ultimate fate of our universe in a most unlikely source. It is mentioned in the Conversations with God books by Neale Donald Walsch.

For those who are unfamiliar with Neale Donald Walsch, he is an individual who claims that God speaks to him often and gives him answers about various subjects. Here, "God" tells him that the universe will end in the very far future (about trillions of solar years from now) and a new universe will be born again. God tells him that this is the in-going and out-going breath of God. This cyclic view of the fate of our universe is similar to Hindu thought about the fate of our cosmos. I added this small piece of information to find out if there is any scientific truth about this. In addition, God says that there would be enough gravity in the far future to force a total collapse of the entire cosmos. He/She/It (refering to God) also states that the universe is currently expanding at a phenomenal rate but this expansion will slow down and the universe will contract in the end. This process will go on forever. Any scientific views about this? --Siva1979Talk to me 14:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The scientific views are mostly covered in the article. The best observational evidence presently available suggests that the universe will expand indefinitely, cooling towards but not quite reaching a heat death. It's possible that new observations or new discoveries about physics will revise this view, but that's the best we have so far based on many decades of evidence. --Christopher Thomas 19:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I totally agree with your comments. The keywords you used here were "presently available". But let us consider the possibility that our current scientific knowledge about our universe is at its primitive state. If this is so, maybe in the future, science would be able to prove to us that our universe will expereince a Big Crush and the Big Bang will happen again. This evidence would then complement the Hindu's and Neale's (or is it God's view?) view of our universe. (In the Conversations with God books, God also makes an observation by stating that our science, religion, beliefs, culture and politics are primitive in nature) --Siva1979Talk to me 16:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Anything's possible. But your speculation about the end of the universe seems rather flavored by religious wishful thinking. It's true that the science is relatively young, and no doubt there will be many major discoveries in the future on this matter—but that just makes it impossible to accurately determine how our understanding of the fate of the universe will change. Your idea about the Big Bang occurring again, presumably based on the assumption that the universe will infinitely recur, seems to violate the first law of thermodynamics (the conservation of energy), which doesn't allow for "starting over". One way or another, everything in current science suggests that the universe can't keep it up forever. Also, "primitive" is a rather meaningless rhetorical descriptor in this case; after all, how "primitive" something is is purely relative, and can only be based on comparison to something that's less primitive, which presumably isn't possible in this case. -Silence 16:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, when I used the term "primitive", I was analyzing the answers God (or is it Neale himself?) gave in one of the books in the Conversations with God series. Here, it is revealed that our civilization stands at the 12-yard line of a 100-yard football field. This means that compared to other alien civilizations in our universe (yes, God admits the existence of other advanced civilizations in our cosmos) we are primitive in our way of life. Of course, one can dismiss this revelation as pure nonsense (but this calls for a different debate) and view our own civilization as advanced. But just for discussion sake, let us take a view that evrything which is said in those books are from God. Then science have yet to discover a higher law of thermodynamics. Science have also taken the view that ONLY the physical universe exist. There could be another "higher" universes (eg. the astral and causal universes which is more subtle) which is impossible to detect by science alone.
Anyway, I agree with you that we should approach this article with a scientific view. The reason, I brought this up is for the readers to have a more broader view of our place in the cosmos. We should also not ignore totally the religious viewpoints of our cosmos. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • "But just for discussion sake, let us take a view that evrything which is said in those books are from God." - Why? I could speculate just as easily that anyone is God, from myself to Carrot Top to Batman, but that wouldn't yield many fruitful results. This doesn't seem like it will either; his speculation seems fairly mundane.
  • "and view our own civilization as advanced." - I don't view our civilization as advanced or primitive; there's no known civilization to compare humanity to, so such a comparison would be pure fantasy. It's certainly much more advanced than it used to be, and is very likely more primitive than it will be, but that just means that it's advancing, not htat it's necessarily "primitive" or "advanced" on some imaginary scale.
  • "Then science have yet to discover a higher law of thermodynamics." - What is a "higher law of thermodynamics", and why would you expect science to discover one?
  • "Science have also taken the view that ONLY the physical universe exist." - Nonsense. Science doesn't take any "views" except what are absolutely necessary for gathering information and putting it to good use (in other words, science is a purely utilitarian, practical, and flexible construct, not an ideological or dogmatic one). I strongly recommend that you read Naturalism_(philosophy)#Methodological_naturalism_versus_ontological_naturalism. It's not that science assumes that the supernatural doesn't exist, it's that it doesn't assume that the supernatural (or anything else) does exist, in lieu of evidence supporting such. What "the supernatural" even is is a very tricky matter to define, and the very idea of the supernatural is very likely just a human psychological construct based on the common desire to find "deeper" things "beyond" everything else known to exist, rather than being satisfied with what is likely to exist, in all its splendor. This desire, of course, also has its benefits; it keeps us creative and active, writing stories and creating art. But it has no genuine basis in reality, as far as all our past experiences has shown us.
  • "There could be another "higher" universes (eg. the astral and causal universes which is more subtle)" - This statement does not make any sense. In what sense could there be another universe that is "higher" than this one? And the old idea of an "astral", or psychic, universe has been thoroughly explored and debunked in the last few hundred years, such that there's no more evidence supporting the dualistic idea of a separate, magical existence of the mind than there is for the idea of a separate universe just for ice cream. And I don't even understand what you mean by "causal universe"; isn't our universe already causal?
  • "which is impossible to detect by science alone." - If it's impossible to detect by science "alone", then how could it be detected? Science studies all observable phenomena, everything that humans can possibly know or interact with in existence; if something can't be studied or detected by science, presumably it can't be studied or detected period, which makes outright speculation about imagined, completely hypothetical undetectable things entirely useless; you might as well just give up altogether and become a solipsist (cf. brain in a jar) if you're not going to give any credence to your (remarkably reliable) perceptions and senses.
  • "The reason, I brought this up is for the readers to have a more broader view of our place in the cosmos." - And what do you imagine that "role" to be? And for that matter, why do you think that a scientific view of the universe isn't "broad" enough? If you're referring to literary or poetic analyses of the universe, those are an individual issue, and more relevant for understanding the human condition than for understanding the true universe.
  • "We should also not ignore totally the religious viewpoints of our cosmos." - Why the fuck not? :) If some people want to hold religious views about the cosmos, obviously they should be permitted to do so freely and openly, and derive as much personal fulfillment as possible from those beliefs. But your suggestion that everyone should hold religious beliefs is rather closed-minded and intolerant of the irreligious; like all subjective and personal beliefs, religion is not for everyone, just for the religious. -Silence 15:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, firstly I would like to thank you for your strong comments. But I am not willing to enter into a argument with you on this. However, I would like you to read this webpage first [1] before coming to a conclusion that my statement "there could be another "higher" universes (eg. the astral and causal universes which is more subtle)" makes no sense to you! Chapter 43 of the classic book Autobiography of a Yogi by Paramahansa Yogananda talks about life and death and the existence of higher, more subtle universes.
Secondly, you asked the question "if it's impossible to detect by science "alone", then how could it be detected?". It can ONLY be detected and proved by yourself! (according to people who have reached spiritual perfection) It is by going through many years of spiritual purification and meditation. If you feel that this is a complete waste of time by achieving knowledge and wisdom, so be it. All I am asking you is to have an open mind and read the Autobiography of a Yogi. Then, you can come to whatever conclusion you may have about our universe.
Lastly, I am NOT intolerant about irreligious or atheistic beliefs! I am perfectly comfortable in having a discussion about religion with them as I personally do not follow any religious beliefs. I am just trying to state a few different points about the universe by people who have claimed to have realized God. The question is: Should we totally ignore their views about our universe? Christ once said, "In my Father's Kingdom, there are many mansions" and Shakespeare once wrote, "There are more things in Heaven and Earth Horatio, then are dreamt of in your philosophy". Happy reading! --Siva1979Talk to me 14:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, God, I'm so confused about how to use these talk pages but here's a shot.

Siva, if you're interested in a 'regenerating' universe, I suppose, without beginning or end, you should look into Brane cosmology, particularly the Cyclic Model. It's lots of string theory and whatnot, and in dispute, but still interesting to check out. 72.225.142.168 08:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Big Crunch Rewrite

Big Crunch article needs rewrite to support the Big Crunch main article. The article claims the theory has been disproved, or at least has great evidence against it, because of the general acceleration of the expansion of the universe. I would do this but I would probably appear to be a rambling drunk 80-year-old man in an airport bar ;) (hurray to everyone that gets the reference!)


why is everone so excited about learning how they will die? i dont see any point....203.103.49.154 06:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

-- Linkinpark342 (need to make account)

66.202.34.162 13:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Big Crunch image and caption

The image caption currently says: The Big Crunch. The vertical axis can be considered as either plus or minus time.

This is potentially misleading. I had to read it three times. I suggest a better description, or an image that shows this clearly.

[edit] Fundamental universal low of the Universe

Research following below the principle brief information because as I see its fundamental universal low of the Universe:


“Beginning of the creation a part of the power of the nature became divisible as a result of the big bang. Future of the big bang, everything of the world of matter including the present visible unit is the result of evolution i.e. revolving of the sole level picture and evolution of picture or advent of multilateral matter as a result of change. And, as I see it’s through in the universe is “individual respective very locations are the present and the rest all the locations are of the deep of the past”


If you research mentioned above the principle brief information, ultimately you can find out how our Universe is!

Serving as an example; “Individual respective very locations are the present and the rest all the locations are of the deep of the past” According to this theory, our home planet is present before us at this moment, likewise just at this time it is again submerged into the depth or the past from another site of space. There has been no incidence of present and future at all at any site of space, all are submerged into their respective depths of the past. Accordingly for the reason, as I see it that the God don’t know our present movement if her presence is out of our home planet i.e. there is no way to find out our present staying any space of the Universe. Again, at this very moment, how the present condition is another space of the universe, science can’t find out by the telescope because in naked eyes or through telescope is the always changing or evolution from our angle of vision i.e. the material picture of the present time shall not be detected. Circumstantial evidence, only one path to open our imagination power through that is changeless and we are finding by the imagination through our universe is very early or fate. That means at this event whatever shall be received through imagination for any border on the spiritual of the universe shall be vanished at this very moment in reality viz. the realism is that everything is the reflection of imaginative.

Thanking you in anticipation.

Shahidur Rahman Sikder.

shahidurrs@dhaka.net

[edit] Question removed from article

I have a point I'd like someone to question. The oscillating universe theory works WITH the second law of thermodynamics, entropy is building, and therefore explains the presence of dark matter, and why the expansion rate is accelerating presently not a simple uniform rate. Each big crunch leading to each big bang and each time it begins again the energy level must increase.. For to me it seems there is already quite a state of disorder in our system, space itself is non-matter, so what is dark-matter? The result of the constant contraction and extrapolation of our universe? Infinately moving, finite size, finite time. The shape doesn't have to be closed, but for something to expand, it must contract. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.235.171.159 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] List of doomsday scenarios

Could use votes to save this article, thanks MapleTree 22:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Death Question

So, do ALL "Ultimate Fate of the Universe" theories involve the definite death or organisms, either through heat death, compression, or a Big Rip?

If so, that's pretty daunting.

I don't think that "daunting" is quite the word you're looking for. And, considering that all "ultimate fates of the universe" will not take place for a lengthy of time which the human mind is remotely capable of conceptualizing, you'd do better to be concerned with an asteroid impact, or the changing condition of the Sun, or with an interterrestrial threat like war or disease. The length of time remaining in the universe's lifespan is so incomprehensibly vast that it is even more meaningless to fear it than it would be for a fruitfly to fear that it will someday be killed when the Sun becomes a red giant; not only is such a distant and inevitable eventuality fruitless to worry about, but the fruitfly certainly will be dead long before that anyway; indeed, all fruitflies will probably be extinct long, long, long before that. Same for humans.
However, I agree that it's an interesting little mindfuck. -Silence 01:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Still, the problem from my perspective is that nothing will be lasting- no contribution, no great work, no thought or concept. And if some models are right, the end will be an empty expanse with little more than photons in existence. No matter which way it's sliced or diced, the end result is essential nonexistence on a wide scale. That said, I'm also not worried about the death of humans, the destruction of Earth, or whatnot- I'd just like to know that SOME sort of intelligent life would continue existence, that there could be some sort of infinite cycle that would never conclude.Robinson0120 01:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Well then get some ingenuity, pride, and inventive spirit and fix it ;) daFoos 10:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Your problem seems to be that you consider the value of life to only be real if the universe is infinite. In reality, it seems like the reverse is true: if the universe were infinite, nothing we could do would matter because there would always be more time. It is because life is so short and transient that there is a reason to do anything at all. It is because our time here is limited that we have a reason to make the best of it; if it was unlimited, we could always do something later, and never worry about today. This is why an inconceivably vast universe is better than an infinite one. Another problem in your view is that you assume that life can only be valuable or meaningful if there is some productive end to it: there must be something after life that justifies life (even if it's just other life observing life) to make life worth living. Consider the analogy of a book. Is the only value of a book its ending? Of course not: it is the journey, not the destination, that validates a book, that makes it precious. The same is true for life. Life is not meaningful because of what happens after life; it is meaningful because of what happens during life. The process of living itself, if anything, is what gives life its value; whether the rest of the universe goes on for X or Y amount of years afterwards has no effect on life, which will have ended either way. Seeking external confirmation for life to have meaning is futile, because that just means that whatever external thing validates life will itself be valueless. -Silence 01:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Virtual Particles?

In the expansion of the universe continues to expand forever, what happens to virtual particles? Could the expansion reach such a high speed that virtual particles could be torn apart before they can anhiliate each other? It reminds me of Hawking Radiation, where the black hole absorbs one particle of a virtual pair, while the other escapes. If the expansion were rapid enough, the virtual particles could be quite distant within their lifespan.--RLent 21:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Multi-level Cosmology

I deleted the information on multi-level cosmology. Recently, a standalone article on multi-level cosmology was deleted, and was even considered as a scientific notability test case. After a unanimous vote for deletion, it was speedily deleted. Given the strong consensus about deletion, and for the reasons cited in this test case, I feel it's justified to delete the information from this article. Kevinwiatrowski 04:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cosmological uncertainty principle

The way the scientific bit of this article is structured around the geometry of the universe is fundamentally out of date. When you let the cosmological constant out of the bag, the connection between geometry and fate is completely broken. I've pointed this out without changing the existing structure at present. Arguably the existing structure should be thrown out, but I guess it has the advantage that many people think that geometry = fate and will just assume the article is wrong if this is not dismissed in words of one syllable. I will add a new section on the so-called cosmological uncertainty principle (think I can find a citation) which says that since we don't understand the equation of state, we shouldn't pretend to predict the fate of the universe... after all, inflation was a form of dark energy and it ended; the same might happen again. PaddyLeahy 17:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I used to be of this opinion, Paddy, and I certainly hear your objections. However, I think that conceptually it is easier to explain what the connection between open, closed, and flat are if we pretend that we are in a matter-dominated universe. This is simply because people (most professionals included) aren't used to conceptualizing scalar energy. The story is kind of fun to tell: you first explain to people how the matter-density of the universe determines its fate, then remind them that according to Einstein energy should also affect curvature, throw in a scalar field, and watch as they puzzle over a universe that's older and flatter than what its matter-density measurements indicate it should be. --ScienceApologist 17:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm done for now; tidy up as you think fit (& I'd be grateful if you could restore the spoiler warning... I've been banned once already for edit warring with David "I don't change a page more than once" Gerard). PaddyLeahy 18:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fermion-boson fate of universe theory

Looks like gibberish to me. Does it make sense to anyone else? Searched arXiv and ADS with no success for a relevant paper by "Hunt" in the last few years (fermbec = fermion BEC, not a person). PaddyLeahy 21:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No no-fate theory?

Should it be understood from this article that there exists no possibility, for cosmology, that the Universe may be just a big infinite shapeless place that will not crunch or overheat and whose exact nature or fate may elude human comprehension? --Childhood's End 13:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


Lay off, this is just speculation, and the most likely causes of universal death. you didn't even comment on the lower down areas. 82.12.86.64 15:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Was this supposed to be an answer to my question? --Childhood's End 14:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes.82.12.86.64 15:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia's policies dictate that we cannot include our own opinion or original research. We have to cite reliable sources. I Love Pi 20:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion proposal

I just noticed that someone proposed that this page be deleted on the basis that it is "not useful". I strongly disagree with the proposal for two reasons. Firstly, whether or not it is useful is, as far as I know, not relevant when it comes to deciding whether or not to delete articles. Secondly, and much more importantly, the article is both interesting and notable, therefore it should stay, imo. -- Hux 09:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a fundamental question of both science and spirituality. I can't believe someone would want to delete it.VatoFirme (talk) 02:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lists

I've revised the list of books in which the end is explored into a prose section that discusses both the timeline of the universal end's exploration in SF and the spectrum of approaches without being, or needing to be an exhaustive list of related works. I'd highly suggest that the subsequent sections are merged into this section as prose, rather than breaking them down by genre. Prose of this sort tends to discourage editors who feel that it's their duty to add their favorite novel or TV show to any list on Wikipedia. It's also more useful to explore the trends in and reasons for such fictional work than it is to simply list their titles and authors. -Harmil 16:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] citations

Someone should really comb through all those additional readings and see how many of them could be converted to inline citations of specific statements.--VectorPotentialTalk 18:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Change the title of the science-fiction section

The science-fiction title should be changed to be inline with the other sections that speculate about the end of the universe: "Non-scientific Perspectives on the End of the Universe" -- Perhaps this section could be merged with the religious perspectives. In any event, religious and non-scientific (science-fiction) theories should be given the same rhetorical weight or both removed.

Vanneev (talk) 07:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] religion is not science

"Many religious beliefs are startlingly cataclysmic, and seem compatible with the various scientific theories about the end of the universe."

What does this mean? What religions? And how do they resemble scientific theories? Are there religions that preach heat death or the big crunch? Are there scientific theories that promote the destruction of the universe at the hands of Shiva, Yahweh or some other mythical deity? I don't think so.VatoFirme (talk) 01:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please rename this article

The word ultimate, means final, fate means death. However, both words are superfluous, as we have no idea IF it will end. Why is the Big Bang article satisfied by just saying The future which does not imply anything else? LouisBB (talk) 09:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Fate does not mean "death", it just means what will inevitably happen. "It will go on forever" is at least one possible fate of the universe. "Ultimate" is appropriate also - if the universe goes on forever we will at some point be long gone (having either destroyed ourselves or evolved into something else completely). Infinity as far as we are concerned is beyond our comprehension, much less our ability to record it, and for all intents and purposes would be practically indistinguishable from finality, from our point of view. I think it's fine the way it is.VatoFirme (talk) 02:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)