"The Cosmos is deemed to be flat because it has the critical mass..." — Metaphysician Undercover
What, you have never heard this before? Standard cosmology. — apokrisis
In the standard model this is done by making massless matter interact with a fictitious matter field, with unbelievable properties (a non-zero value of the vacuum expectation value, for which no reason is given; it's just posited). But the mass can also emerge if massless particles interact amongst themselves. Pure kinetic energy turned massive. — Haglund
The ‘critical density’ is the average density of matter required for the Universe to just halt its expansion, but only after an infinite time. A Universe with the critical density is said to be flat. — https://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/c/Critical+Density
There's a lot of standard cosmology which to anyone who takes any amount of time to think about, will be apprehended as fictional. — Metaphysician Undercover
In effect, our visible corner of the cosmos will have fallen down a black hole about 36 billion light years across (about double its current size). But it won't be a big deal as all its particle content, and any blackholes, will also be long gone. — apokrisis
But hey, why walk before we can run? Let's deal with the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric before we add the wrinkle of the Lamda-CDM concordance model. Let's hear you rant and rave a little more about the vanilla description for a bit. — apokrisis
Forget it. — Haglund
You're right. The figures given by Lineweaver are that the current distance to our cosmic event horizon is 16 billion light-years, and the eventual maximum distance will be 18 billion light years. So there won't be a doubling. We are just about there. — apokrisis
See figs 2 and 3 of https://www.mso.anu.edu.au/~charley/papers/mepp.pdf for both that and the argument that all that's left is blackbody radiation with a wavelength the size of the entire cosmic event horizon. — apokrisis
The particle horizon differs from the cosmic event horizon, in that the particle horizon represents the largest comoving distance from which light could have reached the observer by a specific time, while the event horizon is the largest comoving distance from which light emitted now can ever reach the observer in the future.[3] The current distance to our cosmic event horizon is about five gigaparsecs (16 billion light-years), well within our observable range given by the particle horizon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_horizon
But the photons ain't virtual. — Haglund
Think for yourself instead of quoting Wiki! — Haglund
Oh, and this. It’s Hawking radiation. So pulled out of the vacuum by the event horizon — apokrisis
You apparently couldn’t follow Lineweaver’s paper so I tried something that was hopefully more your level. — apokrisis
Oh, and this. It’s Hawking radiation. So pulled out of the vacuum by the event horizon. — apokrisis
If the two sides of the equation remain in balance, then the whole shebang can coast along forever - continuously spreading and cooling - to reach its heat death at the end of time. — apokrisis
Note that in the updated picture - the current Lamda-CDM concordance model - the end of time (as the effective end of all discernible change) now arrives at a finite future date. — apokrisis
Tell us again how Einstein got it so wrong and MU gets it so right. :rofl: — apokrisis
It's good that even despite the inconclusive discussion about the actual topic that we've at least been able to sort out the fate of the Universe. Makes you think your day hasn't been entirely wasted. — Wayfarer
As I said, fiction. But regardless of whether it's fiction or not, your explanation is very clearly inconsistent with your referenced article. The article explicitly says "but only after an infinite time". Therefore the article's explanation of "critical density" implies no end of time, yet your explanation states "at the end of time". A very clear contradiction in the two fictions, yet you give yours the same name, "critical density", as the other — Metaphysician Undercover
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.