Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 6132274" data-attributes="member: 177">Yes.&nbsp; I applied Hawking's basic posit on science writing*, and found the non-relativistic version was close enough for government work, so to speak.The basic version of which I'm aware (which hinges on the ratio between dark energy pressure and dark energy density) I thought was still up in the air.&nbsp; My understanding is that experimental error is still too large to tell if the ratio in our universe was less than, equal to, or greater than -1.In this version of the &quot;big rip&quot; it is not that space actually rips, in some Doctor Whovian sense.&nbsp; But the expansion accelerates to such a degree that distant objects keep falling outside the observable universe.&nbsp; First it is distant galaxies, then galaxies in the Local Group, then other stars in the Milky Way.&nbsp; Eventually, you get to the point where the observable universe cannot contain a single molecule or atom, and the forces that hold matter together can no longer do so.&nbsp; The universe doesn't really end, or rip, but everything in it is reduced to a fine mist of particles (eventually photons, which may have no size, per se) that cannot interact, because the distances between them are too great.*It didn't really originate with Hawking, but he popularized it to modern science writers - for every equation you include, you lose half your audience.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 6132274, member: 177"] Yes. I applied Hawking's basic posit on science writing*, and found the non-relativistic version was close enough for government work, so to speak. The basic version of which I'm aware (which hinges on the ratio between dark energy pressure and dark energy density) I thought was still up in the air. My understanding is that experimental error is still too large to tell if the ratio in our universe was less than, equal to, or greater than -1. In this version of the "big rip" it is not that space actually rips, in some Doctor Whovian sense. But the expansion accelerates to such a degree that distant objects keep falling outside the observable universe. First it is distant galaxies, then galaxies in the Local Group, then other stars in the Milky Way. Eventually, you get to the point where the observable universe cannot contain a single molecule or atom, and the forces that hold matter together can no longer do so. The universe doesn't really end, or rip, but everything in it is reduced to a fine mist of particles (eventually photons, which may have no size, per se) that cannot interact, because the distances between them are too great. [SIZE=1]*It didn't really originate with Hawking, but he popularized it to modern science writers - for every equation you include, you lose half your audience.[/SIZE] [/QUOTE]

Verification