A question about the fate of atoms

[warrior1]

I saw a show on National Geograpic channel (Naked Science) on the universe etc and in the end they said that a possible fate for the universe would be it would just fly apart, down to the last atom. Until we are left with just the void.

Correct me if I'm wrong but, doesn't things exist today that was created at the birth of time, ie microwave energy? So, even an atom broken apart has got to run into other parts to maybe start this all over.

My thinking is even if the matter, say car, us or the planets do fly apart they will still be in some form or other.

If the universe keeps expanding will things be so far apart they could never come back, "Big Crunch" theory.

Stuff I'm had on my mind since yesterday.

thanks

[Kutjara]

1. Entropy.

Unless there is some unsuspected force in the Universe that will ultimately pull everything back together in a 'big crunch,' the energy available for work will become less available over time. In the deep future, this means everything will be so spread out and energy-depleted that the overall temperature will be almost absolute zero. Even protons, which are apparently the most stable atomic structures, may decay and vanish.

Quantum fluctuations will continue to generate and annihilate virtual particles, but these will only exist for nanoseconds before being reabsorbed into the fabric of space-time. For all intents and purposes, the Universe 80 trillion years from now will be empty and cold.

This presupposes a 'classical', ever-expanding universe with a cosmological constant less than one and, therefore, insufficient gravitational attraction to stop the expansion. So-called dark energy looks like it may hasten our chilly fate, but the jury's still out on this one.

[warrior1]

3. You guys have some big brains

I think I understand it put that way.

I'll check out the link later.

thanks for your input.

[qazplm]

11. so what does that say

about an afterlife, heaven, whatnot?

Is Heaven an entropy free zone? lol

I have never figured out what is scarier...infinite existence or having your existence snuffed out forever.

[piedmont]

16. That last question gave me some pretty deep depression in junior high.

To this day I don't think about it too deeply.

[JimDandy]

17. Those two extremes for the consciousness are unsettling to think about. A more palatable

state of consciousness would be one of infinite recycling, where the consciousness is not aware of previous states of existence. This scenario would eventually lead to a final state of consciousness, though.

[jgraz]

2. When you figure it out, let the Nobel committee know

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton_decay

Physicists are still unclear on whether the proton will actually decay. Atoms almost certainly will, since quantum mechanics shows us that every element is radioactive, but some just have extremely long half-lives.

[warrior1]

5. deep and way over my head

I get that we had more matter than anti matter in the beginning, which leads me the next question is the matter we see today equal the matter created at the big bang? Nothing more and nothing less?

[jgraz]

7. matter/energy conversion is going on all the time

For example, the Sun is converting 4.3 million tonnes of matter to energy every second. Plants capture some of that energy and turn it back into matter. An actual physicist could probably name dozens of examples of this process.

[warrior1]

8. Can you give me

an energy to matter example? Off the top of my head I can't think of any. Except maybe life it self.

[Pierre.Suave]

9. Thats easy

Sunlight to Plant.

Although a very simplified example, plants take sunlight and convert it into energy to grow.

[jgraz]

10. On second thought I don't think that's correct

I'm pretty sure the light gets converted to chemical energy for reactions, but no excess mass is produced. Energy to matter conversion is tricky even in the lab. I think the folks at Stanford managed to do it recently.

[Pierre.Suave]

12. I respectfully offer my counterpoint

And that is that with that energy, the plant grows. It is not a direct conversion as:

(y) energy introduced = (x) mass produced

But, it is still taking that pure energy, and converting it into a bigger plant, ie: mass. Without that energy, the plant would NOT grow.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

13. Yes, well without energy, nothing would do anything.

This is not an example of energy being converted to mass, since the growing plant increases its mass by fixing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

For the conversion of energy to mass, you've got to look at accelerators, which can convert creat electron-positron pairs, for example, from high energy collisions.

[Pierre.Suave]

14. A question

Do electrons and positrons have mass, and if so, how is this similar to using sunlight to create mass by growing?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

15. Yes, electrons and positrons have mass.

"how is this similar to using sunlight to create mass by growing?"

It is not similar whatsoever, since sunlight does not create mass.

Sunlight provides energy for the plant to react six molecules of CO2(g) and six molecules H2O(l) to create one molecule of C6H12O6 (s) and six molecules of O2.

The mass at the end is exactly the same as the mass at the beginning.

[zeemike]

4. Hear is a what if for ya

What if there are other universes out there doing just what ours is doing only not at all the same rate (or at the same rate)
And the atoms from ours mingle with the atoms of theres and form a new universe big bang.
Or is there noting beyond our own universe? How could that be?
Or maybe it is just a dream and we are the dreamers dreaming it into existence.

[warrior1]

6. Multiverse

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse_%28science%29

A multiverse (or meta-universe) is the hypothetical set of multiple possible universes (including our universe) that together comprise all of physical reality. The structure of the multiverse, the nature of each universe within it and the relationship between the various constituent universes, depend on the specific multiverse hypothesis considered.

Multiverses have been hypothesized in physics, philosophy, and fiction, particularly in science fiction. The specific term "multiverse", which was originally coined by William James, was popularised by science fiction author Michael Moorcock. In these contexts, such terms as "alternate universes", "parallel universes", or "parallel worlds" may often be used.

The possibility of many universes raises various scientific, philosophical, and theological questions.