0 k

[AntonioLao]

The heat death of the universe would definitely occurs at the 0 K corral, the absolute zero of temperature. Since the CMBR threshold gave the universal temperature of 3K (2.7K), the countdown can be reset or restarted at 3, 2, 1, and then 0. However, the more important question is how much time (in years) would pass between countdowns, say from 3 to 2, 2 to 1, or 1 to 0? Moreover, if the process is linear then the time differences between every countdown are equal. But astronomical observations clearly indicate that the time differences do not fit a linear regression curve. On the other hand, the product of the time uncertainty and the temperature uncertainty is given by the Planck’s constant divided by the Boltzmann’s constant: ∆tT ≥ h/k. Since this represents an inverse variation between these two uncertainties, it implies that absolute certainty is not physically or experimentally attainable, proving that 0K can never be reached in finite time but certainly infinite time which strongly suggests that the universe would live or expand forever.

[mkirkpatrick]

We will all live forever,and expand in consciousness,not of
course in our physical bodies,rather in our etheric ones.



regards michael.

[SteveA]

Another conflict here would be to consider energy density over time - if we use these events to measure or detect time then these events should always occur as a constant rate, even if the average energy they convey changes (which would appear to be a function of local properties of space - the information or available entropy of a detected event should depend upon characteristics of the detection network and the quantity of distinct states in which it could be observed ... it seems possible that CMBR temperatures would at least remain the same if not increase over time).

[Bogie]

The heat death of the universe would definitely occurs at the 0 K corral, the absolute zero of temperature. Since the CMBR threshold gave the universal temperature of 3K (2.7K), the countdown can be reset or restarted at 3, 2, 1, and then 0. However, the more important question is how much time (in years) would pass between countdowns, say from 3 to 2, 2 to 1, or 1 to 0? Moreover, if the process is linear then the time differences between every countdown are equal. But astronomical observations clearly indicate that the time differences do not fit a linear regression curve. On the other hand, the product of the time uncertainty and the temperature uncertainty is given by the Planck’s constant divided by the Boltzmann’s constant: ∆tT ≥ h/k. Since this represents an inverse variation between these two uncertainties, it implies that absolute certainty is not physically or experimentally attainable, proving that 0K can never be reached in finite time but certainly infinite time which strongly suggests that the universe would live or expand forever.

A couple of comments:
Given the view of many that the universe we are talking about is causally connected to an event many refer to as the Big Bang, and given the apparent accelerating expansion of the universe which can be equated with the rate of cooling, the future rate of cooling would be a factor of the inverse square law. Separation of the galaxies will increase at an increasing rate as the distance between them increases.

However, if there is a greater universe that includes a potentially infinite number of similar Big Bang type events then it could be expected that the separating galaxies from one such event could encounter the galaxies from an adjacent Big Bang. Such an encounter would allow gravity to take over and the galactic material would collapse into a hot big crunch. Several outcomes can be derived from such speculation that could lead to different outcomes if infinite time is allowed.

[AntonioLao]

it could be expected that the separating galaxies from one such event could encounter the galaxies from an adjacent Big Bang.

This works if and only if there is a center to every bang.

[Bogie]

This works if and only if there is a center to every bang.

That is correct.

[AntonioLao]

If all the multiverses are topologically hyperboloids then they can never intersect. See the following
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Hyperboloid.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperboloid
http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&q=hyperboloid&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=univ&ei=xQpbTIW3MsP88Aba17m6Ag&sa=X&oi=im age_result_group&ct=title&resnum=4&ved=0CD0QsAQwAw &biw=1003&bih=361

[Bogie]

If all the multiverses are topologically hyperboloids then they can never intersect. See the following
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Hyperboloid.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperboloid
http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&q=hyperboloid&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=univ&ei=xQpbTIW3MsP88Aba17m6Ag&sa=X&oi=im age_result_group&ct=title&resnum=4&ved=0CD0QsAQwAw &biw=1003&bih=361

If the topological hyperboloids are composed of curved planes then I think they could intersect but they probably couldn't overlap. That brings us to two issues to discuss. One, can your topological hyperboloids intersect but not overlap? And two, can an expanding universe have a center of expansion this is undetectable?

[AntonioLao]

Since the hyperboloid surfaces are parallel with one another they need not necessary intersect. On them infinite number of parallel lines can be constructed and the idea of parallel multiverses begins to make sense. Only spheres and ellipsoids have centers. Mine is based on Mobiusoids.

[Bogie]

Since the hyperboloid surfaces are parallel with one another they need not necessary intersect. On them infinite number of parallel lines can be constructed and the idea of parallel multiverses begins to make sense. Only spheres and ellipsoids have centers. Mine is based on Mobiusoids.

So you don't disagree with the statement that two topological hyperboloids can intersect, right. If you agree, that resolves question number one from my post above.

Now what say you about question two?