Not that it will matter to us, but far into the future, long after the sun has cooled, what becomes of all the atoms that are existing then??...
Given much more time after that, will all atomic structures disinegrate priming the universe (universes) for the next eventual collapse?
...and if it DOES transform into energy alone, would energy have an attraction (other than gravity) that brings it back to the big bang (theory)?
Another silly question.
That was one of the earliest questions I asked when I came to this board. 
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=15810&hl=
In short, the answer is "yes."
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=15810&hl=
In short, the answer is "yes."
Okay, so as the universe ages, and all the masses have shed their heat, and the atoms of those masses have decayed, What is left?
Does the acceleration of these decaying bodies from each other gradually decrease?
What brings them back together? Is this a chicken or egg thing where the attraction of masses occurs before their decay or after?
Were you satisfied with the answers in that thread?
After the decay of all the atoms, where is all the "heat" that had been dissipated into the cold space? Will the decay of atoms in time (and I mean big time) provide that cosmic saturation of precipitous energy? Are we (without bringing up dark matter) looking to electromagnetic fields for reorganization (albeit chaotic)?
In any event, I have a difficulty accepting the big bang theory unless something "outer" pushed everything back together and the big bang was a repercussion... a compression and release. and not all that instantaneous.
Does the acceleration of these decaying bodies from each other gradually decrease?
What brings them back together? Is this a chicken or egg thing where the attraction of masses occurs before their decay or after?
QUOTE
Empress Palpatine:
That was one of the earliest questions I asked when I came to this board.
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=15810&hl=
That was one of the earliest questions I asked when I came to this board.
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=15810&hl=
Were you satisfied with the answers in that thread?
After the decay of all the atoms, where is all the "heat" that had been dissipated into the cold space? Will the decay of atoms in time (and I mean big time) provide that cosmic saturation of precipitous energy? Are we (without bringing up dark matter) looking to electromagnetic fields for reorganization (albeit chaotic)?
In any event, I have a difficulty accepting the big bang theory unless something "outer" pushed everything back together and the big bang was a repercussion... a compression and release. and not all that instantaneous.
QUOTE (Bloy+May 17 2008, 02:53 PM)
In any event, I have a difficulty accepting the big bang theory unless something "outer" pushed everything back together and the big bang was a repercussion... a compression and release. and not all that instantaneous.
What you're describing might be the way it all actually happened, no one knows for sure. It's impossible for us to observe what came before the big bang. Scientists are still trying to come up with ideas that fit the known facts about the universe. I, personally, rather agree with you that there probably was mass and energy before the big bang, and that it was gathered together to provide the reaction mass for the bang itself.
The one thing they all seem to agree on is that once all of that (potential) compression happened, the bang itself was a relatively instantaneous event.
What you're describing might be the way it all actually happened, no one knows for sure. It's impossible for us to observe what came before the big bang. Scientists are still trying to come up with ideas that fit the known facts about the universe. I, personally, rather agree with you that there probably was mass and energy before the big bang, and that it was gathered together to provide the reaction mass for the bang itself.
The one thing they all seem to agree on is that once all of that (potential) compression happened, the bang itself was a relatively instantaneous event.
QUOTE (Dabeer+May 17 2008, 02:15 PM)
The one thing they all seem to agree on is that once all of that (potential) compression happened, the bang itself was a relatively instantaneous event.
Thanks, Dabeer
The "instantaneous" thing is what bothers me...
We point the Hubble in all directions and far back in time there are millions of galaxies. But wouldn't an instantaneous explosion have spewn all out in a three dimensional ring or the surface area of a sphere? If so, what we are observing through Hubble is only this "relaxed" shell and that internally there is only space and externally there is only space? This space being beyond our scope since the intitial "bang" sent everything off at the speed of light and everything "inner" or "outer" has no light to be seen.
Supposing the "big Bang", this would show the magnitude of the thickness of the expanding spherical shell we abide in.... but the acceleration?
Heh,.... kinda reminds me of blowing smoke rings....but they always slow down within an atmosphere providing friction.
Anyway, this is getting away from the complete decay of atoms..not to mention the particles within and passing through. Considering this, I tend toward the steady/unsteady state ideas presented
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.