Claim: Universe to end with a 'big rip' where 'atoms are ripped apart'

New model of cosmic stickiness favors ‘Big Rip’ demise of universe

big-rip-universe
This is a time line of life of the universe that ends in a Big Rip. Credit Jeremy Teaford, Vanderbilt University

From Vanderbilt University:

The universe can be a very sticky place, but just how sticky is a matter of debate.

That is because for decades cosmologists have had trouble reconciling the classic notion of viscosity based on the laws of thermodynamics with Einstein’s general theory of relativity. However, a team from Vanderbilt University has come up with a fundamentally new mathematical formulation of the problem that appears to bridge this long-standing gap.

The new math has some significant implications for the ultimate fate of the universe. It tends to favor one of the more radical scenarios that cosmologists have come up with known as the “Big Rip.” It may also shed new light on the basic nature of dark energy.

The new approach was developed by Assistant Professor of Mathematics Marcelo Disconzi in collaboration with physics professors Thomas Kephart and Robert Scherrer and is described in a paper published earlier this year in the journal Physical Review D.

“Marcelo has come up with a simpler and more elegant formulation that is mathematically sound and obeys all the applicable physical laws,” said Scherrer.

The type of viscosity that has cosmological relevance is different from the familiar “ketchup” form of viscosity, which is called shear viscosity and is a measure of a fluid’s resistance to flowing through small openings like the neck of a ketchup bottle. Instead, cosmological viscosity is a form of bulk viscosity, which is the measure of a fluid’s resistance to expansion or contraction. The reason we don’t often deal with bulk viscosity in everyday life is because most liquids we encounter cannot be compressed or expanded very much.

Disconzi began by tackling the problem of relativistic fluids. Astronomical objects that produce this phenomenon include supernovae (exploding stars) and neutron stars (stars that have been crushed down to the size of planets).

Scientists have had considerable success modeling what happens when ideal fluids – those with no viscosity – are boosted to near-light speeds. But almost all fluids are viscous in nature and, despite decades of effort, no one has managed to come up with a generally accepted way to handle viscous fluids traveling at relativistic velocities. In the past, the models formulated to predict what happens when these more realistic fluids are accelerated to a fraction of the speed of light have been plagued with inconsistencies: the most glaring of which has been predicting certain conditions where these fluids could travel faster than the speed of light.

“This is disastrously wrong,” said Disconzi, “since it is well-proven experimentally that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.”

These problems inspired the mathematician to re-formulate the equations of relativistic fluid dynamics in a way that does not exhibit the flaw of allowing faster-than-light speeds. He based his approach on one that was advanced in the 1950s by French mathematician André Lichnerowicz.

Next, Disconzi teamed up with Kephart and Scherrer to apply his equations to broader cosmological theory. This produced a number of interesting results, including some potential new insights into the mysterious nature of dark energy.

In the 1990s, the physics community was shocked when astronomical measurements showed that the universe is expanding at an ever-accelerating rate. To explain this unpredicted acceleration, they were forced to hypothesize the existence of an unknown form of repulsive energy that is spread throughout the universe. Because they knew so little about it, they labeled it “dark energy.”

Most dark energy theories to date have not taken cosmic viscosity into account, despite the fact that it has a repulsive effect strikingly similar to that of dark energy. “It is possible, but not very likely, that viscosity could account for all the acceleration that has been attributed to dark energy,” said Disconzi. “It is more likely that a significant fraction of the acceleration could be due to this more prosaic cause. As a result, viscosity may act as an important constraint on the properties of dark energy.”

Another interesting result involves the ultimate fate of the universe. Since the discovery of the universe’s run-away expansion, cosmologists have come up with a number of dramatic scenarios of what it could mean for the future.

One scenario, dubbed the “Big Freeze,” predicts that after 100 trillion years or so the universe will have grown so vast that the supplies of gas will become too thin for stars to form. As a result, existing stars will gradually burn out, leaving only black holes which, in turn, slowly evaporate away as space itself gets colder and colder.

An even more radical scenario is the “Big Rip.” It is predicated on a type of “phantom” dark energy that gets stronger over time. In this case, the expansion rate of the universe becomes so great that in 22 billion years or so material objects begin to fall apart and individual atoms disassemble themselves into unbound elementary particles and radiation.

The key value involved in this scenario is the ratio between dark energy’s pressure and density, what is called its equation of state parameter. If this value drops below -1 then the universe will eventually be pulled apart. Cosmologists have called this the “phantom barrier.” In previous models with viscosity the universe could not evolve beyond this limit.

In the Desconzi-Kephart-Scherrer formulation, however, this barrier does not exist. Instead, it provides a natural way for the equation of state parameter to fall below -1.

“In previous models with viscosity the Big Rip was not possible,” said Scherrer. “In this new model, viscosity actually drives the universe toward this extreme end state.”

According to the scientists, the results of their pen-and-paper analyses of this new formulation for relativistic viscosity are quite promising but a much deeper analysis must be carried out to determine its viability. The only way to do this is to use powerful computers to analyze the complex equations numerically. In this fashion the scientists can make predictions that can be compared with experiment and observation.

###

The research was supported by National Science Foundation grant 1305705 and Department of Energy grant DE-SC0011981.

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
252 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
tom0mason
July 2, 2015 12:17 pm

I find it hard to take any of these theories seriously while time and the passing of time is just a mystery.
How does time relate to all of our perceived cosmological constants? How, if at all, does gravity relate to time and its passing. My fundamental questions are — is the passing of time a constant? If it was not how would that impact our known physics today. Is there any method of measuring it given that our reference frame is always imbedded in time’s passage.
I surmise that we are within time as if stuck in a substance. This time substance has a variable density, which alters the rate at which time passes, from the beginning of the universe (very dense time) changing continuously all the way out to the far reaches of the know universe (very ‘thin’ time). As we are within this time substance we can not ‘see’ (perceive, measure) this effect as we ‘look’ through the substance. Just like looking through an all encompassing glass with variable optical refractive index through it’s thickness, we would find it difficult to perceive it’s true properties, and the real properties of anything outside of it’s domain.
No so much the trickle of time but the treacle of time. 🙂

Kpar
July 2, 2015 1:12 pm

Well, if our souls are immortal, we should be there to see it. Somebody remind me then to check.

Gamecock
July 2, 2015 1:17 pm

They asked George Burns if he wanted to be buried or cremated. He said, “Surprise me.”
I’m comfortable with being surprised how the earth ends.

July 2, 2015 1:44 pm

I wouldn’t be too concerned about The Big Bang or The Big Rip. I’d be concerned about all that blue, orange and red stuff that’s out there!

Doonman
July 2, 2015 2:14 pm

Its becoming apparent that the universe is not sustainable. That can only mean that everything in the universe is not sustainable. That means any attempt to conserve, recycle, reallocate or restrict any resource to make it sustainable is folly. Use it or lose it.

July 2, 2015 2:56 pm

From today the human race got one more imminent thing to be concerned about.
Robots are turning on their masters
In a Volkswagen’s production plant in Germany robot killed a young man. The worker (22) assisted in setting up a stationary robot that handles the auto parts, when the robot suddenly grabbed and shoved him into the press automatically activated to form metal plate into a car body shell.

July 2, 2015 2:56 pm

Dark energy, dark matter, Big Bang. Another area of science that just can’t seem to cope with observations not matching predictions. I have a bit more empathy here than I do for the Greenhouse brigade, simply because it’s much easier to retrofit Einstein with convienient mathematics than it is to challenge his theories. Still, sooner or later someone who does will have to be taken seriously.

London247
July 2, 2015 3:10 pm

On an attempted humorous note.This is all presuming that the Universe exists. Yes we see the the light from the Andromeda galaxy as it was 2.5 million years ago. But it doesn’t mean it is still there. It could have been devoured by star goats ( ref Douglas Adams). Or the stars could have been shut down on environmental grounds as they were using non-renewable fossil hydrogen and were emitting harmful amounts of UV radiation leading to cancers and causing light pollution on planets.

jmorpuss
July 2, 2015 3:43 pm

If magnetic attraction (gravity) is responsible for mass , then electric potential creates separation . Without the electrons orbiting the nucleus there would be no periodic table . It truly is a electric universe, welcome to the Primer field https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z67EKcOpjaQ

actuator
July 2, 2015 3:54 pm

It seems apparent to me that the universe has an unending infinite cycle that had no beginning and has no end. At the ‘big bang’ the universe is incredibly hot and its smallest components are too hot to form structures because the only force at play at these temperatures are repulsive forces. When temperature levels become less than X the smallest components begin to form associations with others and structures begin to form. The interactions that go on from this point will result in temperature variations and the initial ‘lumpiness’ of the universe but can never maintain the high temperature of the big bang. When the universe inevitably cools to absolute zero all its smallest components clump together in the state of singularity. The temperature of a ‘black hole’ is said to be a few billionths of a degree greater than absolute zero. The temperature of the singularity that is the basis for the black hole is absolute zero. In a universe where everything is locked up in a singular state, it will be as though every singularity is linked to all other singularities by infinitely elastic bungee cords as the only force at play will be an attractive force. All these singularities will eventually accelerate towards one another for probably about the same amount of time it took to achieve absolute zero after the big bang; hundreds of billions or even trillions of years. The mergers of singularities will not cause any increase in temperature. These merging, accelerating singularities will reach a point where they are a little less that 300,000 kilometers apart and will be traveling at about 0.99999999 (take it out as far as you like) of the speed of light. The final merger that results will produce the next big bang. If you multiply a trillion by itself a trillion times the result will be less than a trillionth of the infinite number of times our universe has cycled.
Basic statistics tells us that in such a universe the same sperm and egg containing the same DNA will come together under the same circumstances that resulted in each of us. Have you ever had deja vu, premonitions, dreams that come true, so called sixth sense experiences? When your DNA builds you out it installs memories from previous existences in your brain. You access these memories when you have a sixth sense experience. If you are placed under hypnosis, regressed and asked what you are doing before your current life you will describe prior lives. When Nostradamus, in a dreamlike or trancelike state told of modern vehicles, weapons and countries he could not intellectually relate to at the time he was living, he was recalling events from a life lived in a prior iteration of the universe.
Bottom line? You can’t die, reincarnation is inevitable, no one goes to heaven or hell, and the peaceful non-existence of nirvana is a pipe dream.
For socially obvious reasons I prefer anonymity as far as my beliefs are concerned..

Dav09
Reply to  actuator
July 3, 2015 2:03 pm

While I might quibble about a few details (particularly, the DNA/memory business) I think your bottom line is correct. As John Lennon put it: “You don’t take nothin’ with you but your soul.” As I put it: every sapient IS a universe.

Louis Hunt
July 2, 2015 4:06 pm

To avoid the Big Rip, when God says, “pull my finger,” don’t do it.

jmorpuss
July 2, 2015 4:15 pm

Aren’t we going through the Big Rip Off as we speak?

John Coleman
July 2, 2015 4:57 pm

WUWT interesting articles and absolutely priceless, amazing, fascinating, well research and totally educational comments. I hurry through the articles to get to the good stuff. LOL

old construction worker
July 2, 2015 6:28 pm

“Nothing is faster than light”. Not true with the big bag theory. “inflation” was / is faster than light. Or, “Inflation” didn’t happen, if so, back to the drawing board.

William Astley
July 2, 2015 7:03 pm

The quality and the quantity of astronomical multi spectrum observations has increased exponentially with time. More data and higher quality data has resulted in more anomalies and paradoxes, not less.
Senior professional astronomer Halton Arp is on the correct track in his book ‘Seeing Red, Redshifts, Cosmology, and Academic Science’ which lists roughly a hundred different astronomical observations (shown from astronomical plates) that support the assertion that active galaxies eject lineless, naked quasars, which then expand/develop to form galaxies. This process is how a steady state universe continues to produce what we observe in our sky.
http://www.amazon.com/Seeing-Red-Redshifts-Cosmology-Academic/dp/0968368905
There are trains of ejected quasars in both direction from old active galaxies which following the line/train of ejected objects, in time turn into small galaxies and then to large galaxies. Arp compares clusters which are strings of galaxies such as the Virgo cluster, the Fornax Cluster, and the Coma Cluster and finds the same spatial structure of an initial line of baby naked quasars that change with time to small galaxies and then into larger galaxies which in time also ejected baby quasars.
Connected with the formation of the quasars, the powering of quasars, the evolution of quasars and galaxies, the initiation/turning off of star bursts, and the production of non velocity red shift is immense electrical imbalance. This explains why there is a steady reduction in object redshift along the line of quasars and then galaxies that stretch from the initial (parent) Seyfert 1 galaxy.
The following are new paradoxes and anomalies which disappear if quasars are local rather high redshift objects and if many high red shift galaxies are also local.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0406163v1

“Naked active galactic nuclei”, by M. Hawkins
In this paper we report the discovery of a new class of active galactic nucleus in which although the nucleus is viewed directly, no broad emission lines are present. The results are based on a survey for AGN in which a sample of about 800 quasars and emission line galaxies were monitored yearly for 25 years. Among the emission line galaxies was the expected population of Seyfert 2 galaxies with only narrow forbidden lines in emission, and no broad lines. … …It is argued that these objects can only be Seyfert 1 galaxies in which the nucleus is viewed directly, but in which broad emission lines are completely absent.
Such ‘naked’ AGN appear to be quite common, comprising roughly 10% of the sample of the emission line galaxies observed… …An interesting question which arises concerns the possibility that naked nuclei may be found among more luminous AGN in the quasar regime. This almost inevitably means that candidate objects will be at higher redshift, and much more difficult to identify without the help of a system of strong narrow forbidden lines. There is much anecdotal evidence from surveys based on UVX selection for objects with featureless spectra for which there is no plausible classification. Such objects are typically ignored for lack of observational evidence as to their nature. With information on variability, one can say a lot more.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0604448.pdf

Astronomy: Trouble at first light
But rather than helping to decipher the epoch of cosmic first light, such observations have in fact created another puzzle. Simply stated, the dawn of galaxies seems to be too brilliant: the excess signal outshines the cumulative emission from all galaxies between Earth and the extremely distant first stars. If primordial sources are to account for all of this infrared radiation, current models of star formation in the young Universe look distinctly shaky.
Too many massive stars ending their brief lives in a giant thermonuclear explosion would, for instance, eject large amounts of heavy elements such as carbon and oxygen into space, polluting the cosmos very early on and altering forever the composition of the raw material
available for second-generation stars. But if the first-generation stars were to collapse to massive black holes instead, gas accretion onto such black holes would produce large amounts of X-rays. Both variants seem to be in conflict with current observations.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0509338v2.pdf

Where are the sources of the near infrared background?
Recent measurements of the Near Infrared Background
(NIRB) (see Hauser & Dwek 2001 for a review) have shown an intensity excess with respect to observed light from galaxies in deep field surveys (Madau & Pozzetti 2000; Totani et al. 2001). The discrepancy is maximal at 1.4 μm, corresponding to 17 − 48 nW m−2 sr−1 (about 2-5 times the known galaxy contribution)(Matsumoto et al. 2005); significant discrepancies are found also at longer wavelengths.
The large uncertainty on the amplitude of the excess is due to the subtraction of the zodiacal light (i.e. sunlight scattered by the interplanetary dust) contribution. Two different models for the zodiacal light have been so far proposed, which predict a higher (Wright 1998), or a lower (Kelsall et al. 1998) contribution of this component to the NIRB. It has to be noted, though, that the excess cannot be completely explained by a combination of galaxy and zodiacal light alone, unless current zodiacal light models are seriously incorrect.

The following is a paper that notes there are insufficient sources of ionizing UV radiation to explain the amount ionized gas in intergalactic space in the local universe.
he primary source of intergalactic ionizing radiation are quasars. If it is fact that quasars do not exhibit time dilation then logically there is a paradox as the quasar redshift indicates the quasars are distant objects while the lack of time dilation indicates the quasar is in the local universe. If there were more quasars in the local universe there would be no photon underproduction crisis.
http://phys.org/news190027752.html

Discovery that quasars don’t show time dilation mystifies astronomers
The phenomenon of time dilation is a strange yet experimentally confirmed effect of relativity theory. One of its implications is that events occurring in distant parts of the universe should appear to occur more slowly than events located closer to us. For example, when observing supernovae, scientists have found that distant explosions seem to fade more slowly than the quickly-fading nearby supernovae.

This paper proposes a solution to the photon underproduction crisis is that dark matter might be creating UV radiation in the local universe, however if that were true earth experiments would have detected dark matter.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1404.2933

THE PHOTON UNDERPRODUCTION CRISIS
THE PHOTON UNDERPRODUCTION CRISIS
We examine the statistics of the low-redshift Lyman-alpha forest from smoothed particle hydrodynamic simulations in light of recent improvements in the estimated evolution of the cosmic ultraviolet back-ground (UVB) and recent observations from the Cosmic Origins Spectrograph (COS). We find that the value of the metagalactic photoionization rate (HI) required by our simulations to match the observed properties of the low-redshift Lyman-alpha- forest is a factor of 5 larger than the value predicted by state-of-the art models for the evolution of this quantity. This mismatch in HI results in the mean ux decrement of the Lyman-alpha forest being underpredicted by at least a factor of 2 (a 10 sigma discrepancy with observations) and a column density distribution of Lyman- alpha forest absorbers systematically and significantly elevated compared to observations over nearly two decades in column density. We examine potential resolutions to this mismatch and that either conventional sources of ionizing photons (galaxies and quasars) must be significantly elevated relative to current observational estimates or our theoretical understanding of the low-redshift universe is in need of substantial revision

The universe is eternal rather than started 13.7 billion years ago from a big bang which explains what happened from eternity to 13.7 billion years ago. Same as we observe now.

Reply to  William Astley
July 3, 2015 6:33 am

I agree with Halton Arp.
But who am I to argue with the establishment of textbook gadget technicians?
Big Bang fanatics are even more evil than global warming alarmists (because there is a tacit but powerful agenda of saving creationist beliefs under the veneering of hairy formulas, as there are unmistakable religious overtones in the green agenda). Dr. Arp himself is being relentlessly ostracized and persecuted.
Which is a clear indication of his explanation of red shift being correct.

Zeke
Reply to  Alexander Feht
July 3, 2015 11:35 am

“Big Bang fanatics are even more evil than global warming alarmists (because there is a tacit but powerful agenda of saving creationist beliefs under the veneering of hairy formulas” ~Feht
If the
>Big Bang,
>the Nebular Hypothesis of Planetary Formation,
>On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, and
>the Lyellian geological uniformitarianism
are designed to save Creationist beliefs, then how do the atheists/positivists say the Earth and mankind came into existence in its present state?
Not only do we recognize the purpose and design and fine structure of the creation, but we are also catastrophists, acknowledging that events on this earth have resurfaced it, possibly several times by sudden and extraordinary means. We also acknowledge that there are spiritual laws which govern the order of the universe. For example, evil bears within itself torments and sorrows, even if consequences appear to be delayed in this age. “Do not be deceived. What ever a man sows, that he shall reap.” That is the law, and it is not possible in an accidental universe. None of these cohere with BBT, Nebular theory, favored races, or Lyellian uniformatarianism.

Reply to  Alexander Feht
July 3, 2015 1:21 pm

@Zeke:
Oink, oink.
What else can I say on the same intellectual level?

Reply to  Alexander Feht
July 3, 2015 2:17 pm

I’m still an adherent of “God said it and BANG!, it happened.”

Lars P.
Reply to  William Astley
July 15, 2015 7:36 am

Thanks William! Very enlightening

donb
July 2, 2015 7:14 pm

Philosophically and artistically a Big Rip seems more appealing and symmetrical than a Big Chill.
All matter and energy begin as one condensed unity from almost no volume. All matter and energy end as totally disrupted and dispersed components in an endless volume. No doubt, in future, to be recycled.
I like it.

F. Ross
July 2, 2015 9:16 pm

All this conjecture sounds interesting but there have been so many that it becomes just another puff piece for idle cosmologists.
🙁

Skeptic Sceptic
July 3, 2015 3:37 am

The IPCC, soon to be renamed IPAC (Intergovernmental Panel on Astronomical Change), is shifting focus on those risks that merit the full scrutiny of the scientific community. No longer are the earthbound dangers associated with global warming seen to be the most threatening risks. Now, there appears to be a more calamitous fate in store for the earth and the cosmos: the “Big Rip”. (An unfortunate name, not to be interpreted as “a voluminous, flatulent release”).
Cosmological viscosity, a form of bulk viscosity, needs to be studied in more detail, especially for putative positive feedbacks by molecules previously demonstrated to have such effects in other fields of study. It is speculated that a certain carbon dioxide variant, called “dark” carbon dioxide, is one such molecule, and could exhibit properties acting as a positive feedback on a fluid’s propensity to expand. An effect not unsuitably labeled; the “Dark Green House” effect.
A proposed re-formulation of the equations comprising the CMIP5 ensemble of climate models, to incorporate relativistic fluid dynamics in a way that reduces the mathematical expressions to the first derivative of the dark matter forcings, may serve as a starting point to properly model this effect.
It is expected that one modeled inference from the discovery of the universe’s run-away expansion, is an approaching “tipping point”, beyond which, the earth would become irrecoverably changed. A consequence being that our grand children may not know what snow is, as well as other atomic matter.
Needless to say, the “Big Rip”, promulgated by such forces as “phantom” dark energy, with the modeled positive feedbacks, may bring about the demise of fragile species such as the polar bear, penguin and various amphibia, and indeed, in all likelihood, would perpetrate a grand mass extirpation of all life on earth.
It is worse than we thought.
(Sarcastic)

July 3, 2015 6:59 am

Their numerous fantasy models look more and more like a 4-dimensional condom.
It will certainly rip, and a new model will be conceived.

Reply to  Alexander Feht
July 3, 2015 2:16 pm

😎
Clever word play!

Unmentionable
July 3, 2015 1:17 pm

Well, thank goodness they’ve finally sorted all that out.
Good to know.

pkatt
July 5, 2015 1:52 pm

Lol it will make a wonderful nova episode… just think of all the cg they can incorporate. Its hard to take serious a theory that is built on another flawed theory.

J.H.
July 5, 2015 6:02 pm

The Big Bang theory defies the laws of known physics anyway. They whole thing is preposterous.
According to them. If you get the mass of a large Sun and collapse it in on itself…. It forms a “Black Hole”…. Yet if you get the combined mass of the entire universe…. It explodes.

Jake2
July 5, 2015 8:03 pm

Once each particle is forever separated from communicating with every other it will vanish from our universe and appear in the one above us via hawking radiation… that is, at least, if our universe is inside a black hole. As our hologram of a universe appears to stretch, the container in which we reside shrinks!
…I may have had enough to drink now.