Doesn't the expanding Universe imply a state of imbalance and so, must it not be anchored in something static?

Question

Incidentally, I mean to include space and time as a part of Universe (with a capital "U")

Answer 1

The implication is dark energy. Current measurements indicate there is not enough matter (gravity) to overcome the repulsive force (dark energy) and the Universe is flying apart at an ever increasing rate and will continue to do so forever, and not slow, reverse and contract into a big crunch. Forever until the ultimate entropy of all matter and energy cooling, dissipating into nothingness, or perhaps being ripped apart at the atomic level by the same dark energy force that is pushing the galaxies apart at an ever increasing rate.

Here is the thing. It appears that dark energy is static. Matter and dark matter become less dense as the Universe expands, but dark energy remains constant. Less density means less gravitational attraction but when affected by a force that is constant, expansion accelerates.

Be that an imbalance, so be it. We can conceive of an end of the Universe in a big crunch where all matter and energy return to a singularity, and perhaps a new big bang begins the cycle anew. But it is difficult if not impossible to imagine the ultimate state of entropy to nothingness, where there will be nothing, no matter, no energy, no rebirth. But that is what our observations indicate at the moment.

But isn't amazing that we even concern ourselves of the fate of things a thousand, trillion, trillion millennia from now.

Answer 2

Actually the word 'Universe' means everything that exists. Hence when we discuss the Universe we mean the known Universe. Anything that exists beyond the known Universe is still the Universe. Nor can there be any parallel Universes, because any parallel dimension would still just be part of the Universe. Technically the world Universe has no plural form. Now this said the 'Universe' expanding from the the Big Bang is indeed finite. However the notion that this is all that exists is pure conjecture. We do not know what, if anything exists beyond 15 billion light year radius from the epicenter of the Big Bang.

Answer 3

Yes there is an imbalance and thats why (following the big bang) the big crunch is predicted. There was a big debate about this for many decades - the big bang v the steady state theories. Accepted wisdom now supports the big bang theory and consequently the big crunch theory. This will happen when the metric expansion of space reverses and the universe re-collapses, due to the forces of gravity (provided there is enough matter in the universe) ultimately ending as a black hole singularity.

Answer 4

Imbalance would not be my term of choice, more like cyclic.

From photons and atoms to stars & galaxies, everything appears to be in motion.

To quote Heraclitis: "Everthing is Fire".

There may be static laws by which change proceeds, but change seems to be the universal format.

If there is one consistant theme comming from the realm of science, it is that stasis is an illusion.

The Big Bang implies the Big Crunch.
The Universe is most likely cyclic.
Things appear to relative, not anchored.

Answer 5

It implies movement.
Movement implies a world of becoming. Your question is interesting in that it seems to derive from a very ancient prejudice that existed as far back as ancient Greek, where meta-physicians, such as Plotinus posited movement had to be an illusion, since a perfect Universe would be self-contained and static.
Now why should a static state be considered more perfect than a state of movement? What if perfection requires movement?
I refer you to Heraclitus (just to remain with the Greeks), who said you can not step twice in the same river. He didn't see a problem in change at all. To him, that was simply the nature of the Universe. The problem - if there is a problem - is in our difficulty in accepting it.

Answer 6

Indeed so. That 'something static' is Infinite Space which contains this universe and an infinite number of others.

Edit (after your clarification). By the Universe with a capital 'U', I take it you mean that which I have termed Infinity. Please comment if this is not so. This is no small matter! In fact, it is infinite. Now then ,how can Infinity expand? If something expands it means invariably that it is continuously taking up space outside itself. But for there to be space outside Itself, 'Infinity' would be finite, precisely on account of that. As to space and time, I consider the two as being quite seperate, not as the one idea of the 'space and time continuum' ,for the space within universes and the Space that contains them (Infinity) is the same one Space, while time pertains to and applies within the limits of universes alone, be those limits expanding.

Answer 7

If the Universe actually existed as we think that we are seeing it, it could imply imbalance.

If you look at it as energy masquerading as matter and space regulated by the restrictions time inposes on them, it is recognized as a simple pulsation or frequency.


This is more easily understandable if one considers the actual scale of the components of an atom. If one takes into account the fact that the neutrons, protons and electrons of an atom actually have huge spaces between them it becomes clear that the atoms that make up seemingly solid objects are made up of 99+ percent empty space.

This alone does not seem too important till you add the idea that the atoms that make up seemingly solid objects are more of a loose conglomeration that share a similar attraction but never really touch each other.

At first glance this does not really seem relevant, but closer analysis reveals that this adds a tremendous amount of empty space to solid objects that are already made up of atoms that are 99 percent space. When so-called solid objects are seen in this light it becomes apparent that they can in no way be the seemingly solid objects they appear to be.

We ourselves are not exceptions to this phenomenon.

These seemingly solid objects are more like ghostly images that we interpret as solid objects based on our perceptual conclusions.

From this we must conclude that Perception is some sort of a trick that helps us to take these ghostly images and turn them into a world we can associate and interact with. This clever device seems to be a creation of our intellect that enables us to interact with each other in what appears to be a three dimensional reality.

I hope that helps to answered your question.

Love and blessings Don

Answer 8

when i was a kid, the idea of an expanding universe was pretty much taught. the last stuff I have seen on it indicates it is not expanding but static

the objects in the universe are in motion. stuff like the clouds of megellan for example are stuck with gravity to our galaxy and are along for the ride, but the universe itself is not expanding

considered infinite, some papers i read earlier this year indicated that the universe has defined margins (though unknown where) and would be the research for many years.

the extreme vision (radio waves and vision) shows a veil of white that upon magnification is galaxies, zillions of them at distances that defy imagination. there are more galaxies at extreme range than there are stars in our neigborhood.

is that not a brain teaser?

Answer 9

Is this question relevant to my life even remotely ?Or is it interesting speculation?