Talk:Ultimate fate of the universe
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ultimate fate of the universe article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 6 months  |
 | This  level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
 | On 21 December 2007, Ultimate fate of the universe was linked from Slashdot, a high-traffic website. (Traffic) All prior and subsequent edits to the article are noted in its revision history. |
Birth versus death of the Universe.
editShould it be any biased here?
The purgatory could be for humans when that of death, but not any Universe for its birth.
Only that it is Event driven when still time only for a flow.
Here it never becomes a single connection for that of relationship. Feilretter2468 (talk) 00:32, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
General relativity
editThe theoretical scientific exploration of the ultimate fate of the universe became possible with Albert Einstein's 1915 theory of general relativity. General relativity can be employed to describe the universe on the largest possible scale. There are several possible solutions to the equations of general relativity, and each solution implies a possible ultimate fate of the universe.
Can somebody explain this to me? Surely the Big Bang + Newtonian gravity are sufficient to consider the ultimate fate of the universe, right? Can anybody provide a citation? –CWenger (^ • @) 03:31, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Newtonian gravity isn't sufficient, obviously, since it was proven insufficient by the theory of general relativity. The Big Bang isn't a complete theoretical explanation, and even then modern formulations use general relativity. Newtonian theory is an effective theory which is effective for what it's meant to describe, like an apple falling out of a tree. Newtonian theory is replaced by general relativity in the scale of cosmology. I fail to see a need for a citation on this, are you asking me to teach you physics? 98.109.137.129 (talk) 11:12, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Age - 13.8 vs. 27.4 BY
editI've had second thoughts about this insertion I made recently and have backed it out. Firstly, it had WP:RECENTISM problems. Secondly, if presented, this info needs more attention to WP:DUE than I gave it and time needs to be allowed for alternative viewpoints to appear. Thirdly, this is more directly relevant to the topics of other articles (e.g., Age of the universe). If covered in such articles, perhaps mentions should appear here, with wikilinks to relevant sections in such articles. See this long YouTube video, this short WP article and this source cited there. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Can you really say "one must first understand" the relevant science to understand the Big Slurp?
editIt doesn't really feel like you NEED to fully understand the science to understand the basics of the False Vacuum State. Even more so than a summary, this is meant to give a bare-bones rundown of the topic and it's relation to this article. It doesn't need to summarize precisely how the things that make it work also work, most of the people reading it would probably prefer if it more so explained the effects of the false vacuum state and what it would mean for us. The main article exists for a reason. LunarArmaggedon99 (talk) 03:07, 1 September 2024 (UTC)