As in disappear?

Far, far into the future when the universe is all stretched out could space actually disappear?

I don't see how it could simply disappear unless it would shrink and the
surrounding nothingness would grow(?)

Could it stretch out so much and thin out that it will be close to disappearing?

I've heard a theory that expansion could eventually exceed the speed of light, so from a fixed point of view it would disappear.

Could it stretch and thin out? probably yes if there's a limit on how much
it could expand(stretch) "normally"

I see.....

Yes, if the accelerating universe theory is correct, in 10^100 + years, the distance between two subatomic particles will be larger than the current size of the observable universe.

Wow! Two new concepts for me to add in contemplating the universe.

The fabric of space having a limit to its stretching point leaving holes in the fabric eventually and space expanding so fast it gets ahead of light.

So on the fabric stretching into nothing eventually, I just got done with a book on the nature of the fabric of space and string theory and all that, (Fabric of the Cosmos; Brian Greene). Since the book talks a lot about what space actually consists of, it would seem it could stretch past the point where the fabric remained intact.

Getting ahead of light on the other hand would also be getting ahead of time wouldn't it? Since I still picture the future time/current time boundary as being the edge of space, it could mean you left the Universe if you got ahead of light.

Expansion of the space is to observe if there is a difference – the space inside the atoms remains small and intergalaxy grows – it could be if there are antigravity particle in Cosmic Voids (Dark Energy), or there are more and more gravitationally neutral particles (neutrinos ?) with short range repulsive force.
If the space grows only, or there is just the space as space, we would grow with the space and no observe the expansion.

Why should getting ahead of light mean getting ahead of time?

Also, with space after the BB expanding faster than the speed of light, there is nothing to see beyond the point where the light boundary occurs anyway. Why do you say we leave the universe? Space is part of the universe.

But another question: How can space expand faster than the speed of light? It is not the distant galaxies which are separating in an existing space, but rather that the galaxies are embedded in space and space is expanding, whereby the galaxies are getting separated due to the space between them expanding.

I dont know its either that or the universe will turn into an extremely humongous vacuum

If space was expanding faster then the speed of the light, then this part is NOT OUR UNIVERSE. If something is gone faster then the speed of light we have no information about it.
I wrote how to understand very rapid expansion of the Universe without the violation of speed of light.

The universe consists of space and matter/engergy.

If we started with a BB, and space has been expanding faster than the speed of light, while the energy/matter portion is restricted to speeds < than the speed of light, then the boundary of the universe is dictated by the extent of space, even if some of if is beyond the speed of light.

It is like two expanding spheres, the outer one expanding faster is space, the inner one, expanding less fast, is matter/energy (galaxies).

If the space expands quicker then speed of light and the galaxies slower then speed of light (distance between galaxies /time) it is O.K. But this has no meaning for the physics law. There is a space behind our Universe may be, but we have and will not have any information about it.
Allan Guth proposed this mysterious inflation, because we observed the Universe at the beginning was large and have had Galaxies, Black Holes, Quasars. He believes in mysterious singularity, so he proposed inflation of the space, because he needed the time to form the Galaxies.
Nobody observed inflation of the space , but chime wisely and many people likes mysterious fable.
In our forum – Against the mainstream – we work against such a mainstream myth.

If the distance between subatomic particles is increasing, how would we be able to measure this? Our systems of measurement are defined by fixed length devices, for example a yard stick. Today I measure my dog's height as 2ft and in 10^100 years (after our wakeup from cryongenic freeze) I measure my dog again. Won't the yard stick expand at the same rate as the dog, therefore I measure him as 2ft? I assume the simple answer is a yard is a yard regardless of whether the yard stick expanded. But, our measurement system is based on observation and comparisons.

In other words, I can understand how we would know if galaxies are moving apart, but how can we observe that the fabric of space is expanding (or stretching)? How can the speed of light be measured in m/s in an expanding universe? Theoretically, we are expanding now and our yard stick is growing.

You ask lots of interesting questions, Platinum.

Hope you find your answers amongst the posts.

Can't help much myself.

Non-scientist you see.

__________________
You cannot create a truth by believing in a falsehood.

I don't know if there's anyone still on this thread, but I feel I would like to make comment after all.

As a non-scientist I may miss some glaring mistakes the author of that article has made, but as a layman, I think he has a valid point in one area. That is, the assumption that the Universe was created from a singularity, or something, which then produced a 'big bang' and an expanding Universe, all on the basis of an observation that the universe is expanding.

Frankly I think we need a bit more proof than that and we should study other theories as well.

I recently put a thread in 'General Astronomy' which argued that the 'big bang', if there was one, was not a unique event.

I received a small number of responses, for which I was grateful, but all were worded rather hesitantly and used unproven cliches and possibly mistaken observations..don't get me wrong chaps..we don't want minds so open our brains drop out, to coin a phrase, but let's not assume everything is cast in stone.

If we know what happened one second after the 'big bang' but none of you know what I had for breakfast this morning..despite gaps in logic, then I think we have room for a lot more research before we draw firm conclusions.

__________________
You cannot create a truth by believing in a falsehood.

As the speed of light is defined by current universal conditions with respect to mass and it's density-distribution, while the universe in the distance future may very well stretch itself rather thin, the speed of light will also change, thus there's no reason to believe the speed of light would be violated by universal expansion.

You would not need to. On the small human scale, the electromagnetic force is much stronger than the expansion of space. As soon as your yardstick thought about expanding, the electromagnetic force would pull it back where it was before. There would be no change.

__________________
http://members.elirion.net/~maddad
There are 10 kinds of people. Those who understand binary, and those who do not.

It depends how do you understand the expansion – as more space elements number or just bigger space. If you create more space from nothing or from outsides you see the lower density. If the space just grows we do not see the change because the proton grows and electro force grows as well.

Thank you Maddad. Then this statement that was made above is incorrect? "in 10^100 + years, the distance between two subatomic particles will be larger than the current size of the observable universe"

Ulster
I would disagree with the claim. The distance between subatomic particles would greatly expand if there were no built in correction feature, but there is. I think you and I are safe from being ripped.

__________________
http://members.elirion.net/~maddad
There are 10 kinds of people. Those who understand binary, and those who do not.

lol all I meant was that with current theories which seem to favor an accelerating universe, in the distant future, matter will be so far spread apart that it is pretty much empty. Sorry for any confusion; I'm just a layman too.

It depends of your approach to the space – as discrete and quantified may increase the number of the elemental space particle (the electromagnetic force reduce) or the elemental space grows by it self (the electromagnetic force stay constant).

True, it will be very close to a pure vacuum

But, I believe the consensus is that space stretches rather than grows.


I read Fabric of the Cosmos several months ago, and tried to understand it :-? Usually reading books like that end up creating many more questions for me. The PBS (or Nova, can't remember which) website has a series by Brian Greene online. I watched it and he actually turns out to have a little comedian in him as well.

Read some of Stephen Baxter's stuff. He talks about the deep future in his book called, funnily enough, Deep Future.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...ce&s=books

He uses some of wackier stuff in some of his novels.

Although I don't recall him discussing the fabric of space disappearing, he does talk about the heat death and how the universe will eventually entropy down to a stream of subatomic particles all moving away from each other at the speed of light (or something).

He's a brilliant writer and well worth a read. Some of his sf novels are sublime, especially Voyage, the history of the first Mars landing that never was.

__________________
I think therefore I have a headache.

Getting back to the original question:

If space spreads out infinitely, it is not disappearing. The observable universe might seem to disappear if due to expansion tremendous distances exist between the fundamental particles. But because of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, we would still have a bubbling foam of spontaneous appearing/disappearing pairs of matter/antimatter particles.

you mean quantum fluctuation?

Yes.

In classical physics, empty space-time is called the vacuum. The classical vacuum is utterly featureless. However, in quantum mechanics, the vacuum is a much more complex entity. It is far from featureless and far from empty. The quantum vacuum is just one particular state of a quantum field (corresponding to some particles). It is the quantum mechanical state in which no field quanta are excited, that is, no particles are present. Hence, it is the "ground state" of the quantum field, the state of minimum energy.

Quantum vacuum fluctuation does not means the particle comes from nothing. The discrete empty space has some structure to permit the creation of the particle. In our Universe we are under permanent influence of the different fields (gravity, electromagnetic). There are photons everywhere (Background radiation) . We may say, it is possible (potential) to create a particle-antiparticle almost everywhere. We know, the real electron may be create close to nucleus only. That way we have the virtual particles only.
It seems the space is joint with the Background energy and do carry an information. For us exists the space carrying the information only.
I think, there is energy conservation in the space and the condensation of the Background energy (Information) allows the creation of real observable Universe only.