Gravity Research Foundation's
Fifth Award – The Return of a Static Universe and the End of Cosmology – by Lawrence M. Krauss1,2 and
Robert J. Scherrer2; 1Department of Physics, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH
44106; 2Department of Physics and Astronomy, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37235;
email: 1krauss@cwru.edu, 2robert.scherrer@vanderbilt.edu
Abstract – We demonstrate that, as we extrapolate the current LCDM universe forward in time, all
evidence of the Hubble expansion will disappear, so that observers in our “island universe” will be fundamentally
incapable of determining the true nature of the universe, including the existence of the highly dominant vacuum
energy, the existence of the CMB, and the primordial origin of light elements. With these pillars of the modern Big
Bang gone, this epoch will mark the end of cosmology and the return of a static universe. In this sense, the
coordinate system appropriate for future observers will perhaps fittingly resemble the static coordinate system in
which the de Sitter universe was first presented.

Their theory is unrealistic
it is the same as saying that the universe is really, really, big and that the population of the universe, when compared with such big numbers becomes insignificant and, for all intents and purposes, regarded as zero....

__________________
`Irony` actually does mean `metal like`...

Sounds like we need to leave really good notes.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0221

Interesting "essay." They're essentially correct, but they're talking about what will be observable when the universe is 100 billion or 500 billion years old. At that time, the universe will appear static. But of course, we know better.

Thus, we live in a very special time in the evolution of the universe: the time at which we can observationally verify that we live in a very special time in the evolution of the universe! Observers when the universe was an order of magnitude younger would not have been able to discern any effects of dark energy on the expansion, and observers when the universe is more than an order of magnitude older will be hard pressed to know that they live in an expanding universe at all, or that the expansion is dominated by dark energy. By the time the longest lived main sequence stars are nearing the end of their lives, for all intents and purposes, the universe will appear static, and all evidence that now forms the basis of our current understanding of cosmology will have disappeared.

Well, if you call any time between 2 billion and 100 billion years "special." That's a pretty long stretch of time!

__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

well, if the universe is eternal- or even destined to be a mere couple of trillion years old before it ends- then a 98 billion year slice of time would seem to be pretty insignificant..

__________________
"blacker than the blackest black... times infinity."- Nathan Explosion
The.. Best.. Thread..Ever...

This highlights one of the problems with the current cosmology: Now is a very special time - Expansion has slowed just enough to allow systems to condense, but not enough to completely overwhelm dark energy. Balancing of a theory on the edge of a razor blade is a good way to get cut.

__________________
jwj

It's a big universe out there...is it really unwinding, really burning out?

Hum,
two points:
The expansion is increasing; and systems managed to condense out basically soon after the big bang unfolded.

As cougar has pointed out their theory is essentially correct, but they failed to take the nobel prize-winning next step...

__________________
`Irony` actually does mean `metal like`...

From here:

"We live in a special time in the evolution of the universe," stated the researchers, somewhat humorously: "The only time at which we can observationally verify that we live in a very special time in the evolution of the universe."


I'm beginning to reconsider how "special" and unique earth and its inhabitants are.

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

Three trillion years from now is only a tiny fraction of 'for the rest of time', yet it also is a pretty long time (like 200 times as long as the time since the big bang so far). I suspect that life will only be possible at that time in contrived environments getting energy by slowly spiraling into SMBHs.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

You've been Kiereined.

__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

Ah yes, I should've made the connection as I've been somehwat following that thread.

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

Oh, it'll be worse than that; in three trillion years, *everywhere* will be dark; the only fusing-objects left will be dim red dwarfs and white dwarf remnants of same. No solar-mass stars, no giants, but perhaps the odd nova and Type Ia supernovae. Heck, maybe even a few dwarf-paired microquasars and dwarf novae. I'm guessing there will still habitable planets around red dwarfs, though.

For anyone else interested in this, I highly recommend reading Adams and Laughlin's "The Five Ages of the Universe".

__________________
"I must find if I too if I possess this special skill. Remember, do not stop until I give you the signal or dramatically throw you to the ground and request a towel."

--Kung Pow!

Hum,
these threads have relevance to their work

New oscillating universe model
The Universe is 986 Billion Years Old
Before the Big Bang
Why didn't the universe just turn into a black hole?
The Cyclic Universe: An Informal Introduction
The Big Bang, a one off event or a cycle?
The Big Crunch?
The Universe is 986 Billion Years Old
Before and After
What caused the big bang?

__________________
`Irony` actually does mean `metal like`...

I like it. We live in a special epoch at which we observe an understandable universe, but eventually that will go away,and the solar system has a special orientation such that the sun's axis of rotation just happens to coincide with the axis of evil observed in the WMAP data. Special. Special. Special.

__________________
A third rate theory forbids.
A second rate theory explains after the fact.
A first rate theory predicts.
A. Lomonosov

It's probably is not coincidental, that life happens to form while the universe is at this "special" age. Hard for it to form in a static universe.

__________________
"If this were play'd upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an improbable fiction."
Shakespeare, Twelfth Night
"The Mayan symbol for "book" looks a lot like a triple hamburger, but I've never seen them claiming it as proof the Mayans had Big Macs." - KaiYeves
"Distance doesn’t matter much in space, where if you just start a thing off with the right kind of shove, sooner or later it will get where you want it to go." -Frederik Pohl, Mining the Oort

Yes, this is all pretty much in line with the "anthropic principle". I'm not sure what the future of star formation has in store, to be honest, but it seems to me pretty natural that a significant fraction of all the stars that would be conducive to incubating cosmologists have already been formed. If so, then their entire point is irrelevant-- 100 billion years from now there won't be cosmologists to worry about it, or if there are, it is they who will be special.

>>I'm not sure what the future of star formation has in store

Hum,
indeed, another minor point is that their theory is based on the assumption that those future Cosmologists will be “ fundamentally incapable of determining the true nature of the universe”.

But more generally, it is that anthropic principle that is the flaw in their theory; There is probably no deep significance to what they are saying.
My wreckommendations are to move on...a few more billion years into the future, or perhaps concentrate on the far more "special” events that occurred in the first 3 minutes of the universe.

__________________
`Irony` actually does mean `metal like`...

Tsk! Tsk! You neglect to consider the universe expansion custodianship effects of our ever wiser progeny.

__________________
For those inclined to oppose human meddling with the structure of the universe or the composition and configuration of objects and groups of objects within the universe, consider:
Whether there is a limit to the magnitude of a modulation of chaos below which order remains invariant? Or, is order but a fiction invented by perspectives applied over finite, however large, time intervals?

I think you meant wreck-amendations.

Ask me again in a billion years.

__________________
"If this were play'd upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an improbable fiction."
Shakespeare, Twelfth Night
"The Mayan symbol for "book" looks a lot like a triple hamburger, but I've never seen them claiming it as proof the Mayans had Big Macs." - KaiYeves
"Distance doesn’t matter much in space, where if you just start a thing off with the right kind of shove, sooner or later it will get where you want it to go." -Frederik Pohl, Mining the Oort

Ahh,
yes.
tnx for correction

__________________
`Irony` actually does mean `metal like`...

isn't ..............................inflation
part of standard cosmology

hence we know how little we know
and we see how little we see

so perhaps we should stop to
out-measure the Universe

and keep ourselves amused
with stories about...Turtles
.

we are nothing, just some mediocre agressive civilization of humanoid primates which are so arrogant that they are claiming: "We are special!THERE IS NO LIFE IN UNIVERSE!JUST US! ohhh."

How do we know we're not on one of these "islands" with the CMB which shows a definite point in the past being only the "horizon" of the unknown universe into which we're peering?

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

Only a tiny fraction of Earth-apes are claiming that. The really smart ones are waiting until all the evidence is in.

__________________
"If this were play'd upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an improbable fiction."
Shakespeare, Twelfth Night
"The Mayan symbol for "book" looks a lot like a triple hamburger, but I've never seen them claiming it as proof the Mayans had Big Macs." - KaiYeves
"Distance doesn’t matter much in space, where if you just start a thing off with the right kind of shove, sooner or later it will get where you want it to go." -Frederik Pohl, Mining the Oort

You mean the ones way up there, in their ivory towers?

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

Oh, you have to start that again? No, the ones who understand the scientific method.

__________________
"If this were play'd upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an improbable fiction."
Shakespeare, Twelfth Night
"The Mayan symbol for "book" looks a lot like a triple hamburger, but I've never seen them claiming it as proof the Mayans had Big Macs." - KaiYeves
"Distance doesn’t matter much in space, where if you just start a thing off with the right kind of shove, sooner or later it will get where you want it to go." -Frederik Pohl, Mining the Oort

Oh, I see, that's what I thought.

I'd have to say it was started with the "really smart ones" remark, as if Sir Fred Hoyle wasn't, as if other static universe proponents weren't, as if there is some out of reach distinction here at BAUT between "those who understand the scientific method" and those you allege don't, being only earth apes, and all.

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

Inflation still has a long way to go to get included in the standard model. It's very popular, but it has no real evidence. I'm genuinely surprised that it is as popular as it is, as it addresses an issue that I find to have little philosophical basis and little, if any, scientific basis.

Ummm, inflation IS part of 'the standard model'. I'm not saying it is part of *your* model, but it is part of the standard model. Further, it does have a scientific basis, in that it explains things we have measured.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak