Talk:Ultimate fate of the universe/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Broken link

The link http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0302506 at the bottom of the page does not work. Acces not granted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.195.104.42 (talk) on 20:13, 4 March 2004 (UTC)

Big Crunch image and caption

The image caption currently says: The Big Crunch. The vertical axis can be considered as either plus or minus time.

This is potentially misleading. I had to read it three times. I suggest a better description, or an image that shows this clearly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.210.154 (talk) on 04:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Fundamental universal low of the Universe

Research following below the principle brief information because as I see its fundamental universal low of the Universe:

“Beginning of the creation a part of the power of the nature became divisible as a result of the big bang. Future of the big bang, everything of the world of matter including the present visible unit is the result of evolution i.e. revolving of the sole level picture and evolution of picture or advent of multilateral matter as a result of change. And, as I see it’s through in the universe is “individual respective very locations are the present and the rest all the locations are of the deep of the past”

If you research mentioned above the principle brief information, ultimately you can find out how our Universe is!

Serving as an example; “Individual respective very locations are the present and the rest all the locations are of the deep of the past” According to this theory, our home planet is present before us at this moment, likewise just at this time it is again submerged into the depth or the past from another site of space. There has been no incidence of present and future at all at any site of space, all are submerged into their respective depths of the past. Accordingly for the reason, as I see it that the God don’t know our present movement if her presence is out of our home planet i.e. there is no way to find out our present staying any space of the Universe. Again, at this very moment, how the present condition is another space of the universe, science can’t find out by the telescope because in naked eyes or through telescope is the always changing or evolution from our angle of vision i.e. the material picture of the present time shall not be detected. Circumstantial evidence, only one path to open our imagination power through that is changeless and we are finding by the imagination through our universe is very early or fate. That means at this event whatever shall be received through imagination for any border on the spiritual of the universe shall be vanished at this very moment in reality viz. the realism is that everything is the reflection of imaginative.

Thanking you in anticipation.

Shahidur Rahman Sikder.

shahidurrs@dhaka.net — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.152.88.4 (talk) on 02:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Question removed from article

I have a point I'd like someone to question. The oscillating universe theory works WITH the second law of thermodynamics, entropy is building, and therefore explains the presence of dark matter, and why the expansion rate is accelerating presently not a simple uniform rate. Each big crunch leading to each big bang and each time it begins again the energy level must increase.. For to me it seems there is already quite a state of disorder in our system, space itself is non-matter, so what is dark-matter? The result of the constant contraction and extrapolation of our universe? Infinately moving, finite size, finite time. The shape doesn't have to be closed, but for something to expand, it must contract. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plumbago (talk • contribs) on 13:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Page vandalised

Quickly copy & pasted to sort out vandalism - could someone please sort out properly? many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.67.49.243 (talk) on 17:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn’t these articles be merged into one article?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was not merged. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 06:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

---

Shouldn’t these two Wikipedia articles be merged into one article?

• Future_of_an_expanding_universe

• Ultimate_fate_of_the_universe

Thoughts? RK (talk) 16:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

mergeI think this article should be an overview of the different theories, with subarticles into individual theories (past and present). There is an article on heat death of the universe and Future_of_an_expanding_universe seems to be pretty much the same. They need refocusing and some need merging, and this merge would be a good start.YobMod 10:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

No, these articles deal with different topics (Future of an expanding universe is more specific.) Spacepotato (talk) 22:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't Combine Pages

This page deals with the end of the universe, not the time that precedes that. Its like wanting to combine the page on death with the page on midlife crisis. It is related, but not so related that they should be combined.Acaeton (talk) 13:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

beyond science and religion

Archived thread. Wikipedia is not the place to describe your own thoughts about the nature of the universe.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
... 'philosophy' is in reality the 'loving' of knowledge and thus goes way beyond the documented restrictions and abuses of science and religion... in particular there can be only very limited understanding of this particular topic from stereotyped sources with 'hands tied' by methodological beliefs with well-known flaws which manufacture supposed answers ... ... the only approach to knowing which works in the end is neither dogmatic nor progressively harder 'approximation' , but from the absolute... what we all know then is that there is what we may loosely term 'endlessness' [that which does not end, does not begin] from which somehow is creation of that which does begin and end... the answer to what the creation is is in the endlessness, not in the models of the creation of the creation there is no 'reason' that the creation should know what it is, nor any reason why the endlessness should not communicate with the creatio somehow to know its 'creator' [no implication here as to the 'nature' of what created, nor that it has any 'nature' in any sense we yet understand] ... yet we have much evidence of 'inspiration' in mankind about the creator beyond the predilection of mankind for deceiving in the name of gaining power over others we may come to observe in ourselves for ourselves, once freed from the fears that drive deceit of ourselves and others, that we are aware of the 'undividedness' of endlessness through the ancient truth about love of fellow man [which is at root of almost all religions and science but not wholly manifest in them, not yet realised] we can say assuredly then, absolutely even since none can deny the 'rightness' of 'lovingness', that endlessness conveys its 'unity' to the creation creating what we may perceive as a purpose of creating a better life against the history of the deceit of mankind... my point is then that one cannot understand the end of this 'universe' [an unfortunately complacent term as even we begin to look at what is beyond and created it] from within its constraints of the models of religion and science there is too even ancient record of the 'creator' inspiring the prime truth that one cannot understand endlessness from models based uon what is perceived [as 'physical'] put another way, the reality of endlessness not only conveys that it is different from commonly perceived 'reality' of the created, but that we shall seek to understand endlessness and misunderstand because of the way we think [at this time] we can then see an 'evolution' of methodology, but a few have always seen that everything we 'develop' in is guided not by 'reason' but by the inspiration that drives the engine of reason [and inherent in us the corruption of that mechanism which delivers 'power' over others to a few] inspiration is by nature literally then from endless reality, not from perceived physicality and yet has been the sole shaper of mankind in everything we do looking then, briefly, at our physicality , we are shaped by both good and evil , good from inspiration, evil from short-sighted abuse of physical 'knowledge'... we evolve toward the inspiration of the 'creator' to be whole, united, having integrity, but are mostly unable as self-consciences to avoid the lies to oneself and others in short-term viewing of life... thus there is an automatic division of mankind into the many who now, at this stage, follow the deceptions of physicality , including both the 'rational' and the 'religious' masses of mankind with those dedicated to power - and the few who follow the inspiration of the true [necessarily ultimate] reality of endlessness in short, for this topic, the end of the universe is in the realm of understanding endlessness from endlessness... one has only also to integrate the scientific and religious and deceptive , to understand why they exist, there is no point in pretending they can give a true answer... Isaiah 34:4 And all the host of heaven shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll: and all their host shall fall down, as the leaf falleth off from the vine, and as a falling fig from the fig tree. Revelation 6:14 And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places. Isaiah 65:17 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind. Isaiah 66:22 For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the LORD, so shall your seed and your name remain. 2 Peter 3:13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness. Revelation 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.180.241 (talk) 18:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Possible error?

To clarify, I refer to an error in the prose, not content.

"Each possibility described so far is based on a very simple form for the dark energy equation of state. But as the name is meant to imply, we know almost nothing of the real physics of the dark energy."

I don't wish to edit the article unless this is actually of concern, however I do believe that using "we" in this case - much like in any formal article - is wrong. The group of persons to which "we" refers is not mentioned, nor is it formal. I am a frequent reader of Wikipedia articles, but do not want to accidentally vandalize a page. If you feel this is an error, please correct it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.238.32.21 (talk) 04:38, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Higgs particle's mass implies end of the universe

Shouldn't there be some description of this latest finding?

See http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/god-particle-could-spell-doom-for-the-universe-113022500211_1.html

A n k u r (talk) 21:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Ultimate Fate of the Universe Vs End Times

Adding a new section because the last one hadn't had new discussion in three years.

Here's the problem with the religion section in this article, the article's opening states that the Ultimate fate of the universe is a topic in Physical Cosmology, and is even in the Physical Cosmology Portal, then continues on to discuss theories "accepted by scientists". There is no religious perspective to the science of Physical Cosmology and so it is strays from the topic. While people have the freedom to look at all viewpoints, The religious perspective viewpoint has it's own page at End Times and people should go there to view it. A similar example is the Evolution article not having an "Intelligent Design perspective" section, it doesn't make sense. 132.198.29.249 (talk) 00:23, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure, but I think this topic is a case where there is no reason to remove the religious speculation, particularly since the topic is not an issue with clear definitions and a clear outcome. Johnuniq (talk) 06:49, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the IP; it makes no sense to have this religious speculation and related in this physics article. Life in a mortal universe is barely relevant and "Religious perspective" contains fringe viewpoints too (against the guidelines at WP:FRINGE). IRWolfie- (talk) 15:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I also agree. Religious perspectives are the same as musings, or mere speculation.. they are not science, and should not be in a science section. The ultimate fate of the universe in this context is based on observation. Religion is a human construct, it is simply irrelevant to this article. Hard to explain what I mean, but it makes this article 'human'.. when this article should just discuss observation and science... an alien from outer space should be able to read and understand this. There should be no bias, or speculation included. Im not dismissing religion at all, I am just saying it is innapropriate here. It would be like talking about the ancient triple DNA helix of atlantis (that some people believe) in a section on DNA. This triple helix information helps nobody who wants to know about DNA... Hope it's removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.76.223 (talk) 02:52, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Contrary to the second paragraph, the universe is NOT flat. Very persuasive evidence has accumulated in the last few years that it is, in fact, open. Which is to say the universe is expanding at an ever increasing rate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.223.230.200 (talk) 17:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Could you provide WP:reliable sources that claim the universe is not flat? Also a flat universe will and DOES expand at an ever increasing rate due to dark energy. A universe that expands at an ever increasing rate does not contradict a flat universe. BlackHades (talk) 19:57, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Age of the universe which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 04:00, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Heat death consensus

The article claims the heat death to be the currently prevalent theory, yet a source is stated from 1998. The source doesn't even suggest a consensus, rather discussing the observation of accelerating expansion.

Source requests appeared in 2008, yet there is still no valid source. I am deleting the claim for now and encourage anyone to bring it back, with adequate backing.

84.251.79.145 (talk) 18:23, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Other Big terms on the fate of the universe

What about that other Big-terms which stray in the universe of Wikipedia, such as the Big Brake, the Big Lurch (cosmology), the Big Whimper and the Big Chill? Are they synonyms for the terms used in this article? I think at least Big Whimper and Big Chill are synonyms of the Big freeze.--188.103.84.21 (talk) 19:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

"In science fiction" section

The "In science fiction" section seems so out of place in this article. I'm not aware of any other scientific article on wikipedia that has a similar type of section. I feel it should either be moved into its own new article or deleted. Thoughts? BlackHades (talk) 06:48, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Are there any objections regarding removal of the "science fiction" section of the article? I intend to remove the section soon barring no objections. BlackHades (talk) 22:53, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

what if a weirdo comes and spams thee internet saying he knows the fate of the universe? Technetium-99 (talk) 23:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion of capitalization of universe

There is request for comment about capitalization of the word universe at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Capitalization of universe - request for comment. Please participate. SchreiberBike talk 00:49, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Another Big Bang in 10^10^56 years

At #Big Freeze or heat death, it says: "Random quantum fluctuations or quantum tunneling can produce another Big Bang in $10^{10^{56}}$ years.". Where does the cited article say or imply this? --Max Nanasy (talk) 19:47, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Recently added (12th Feb 2015) section "Proton Collapse" is pseudoscience

Someone has recently added this section which is clearly their original research. It is not generally accepted by the scientific community. (It's basically nonsense.) In fact it was recently removed from the Wiki page "False Vacuum" which is now semi-protected, so has obviously been cut and paste here instead. To the person who added this section, could you please provide some links to accepted science if you disagree with the above. Otherwise, could someone please remove this section. (I haven't done it myself as I'd like to show some concensus that this should be removed rather than entering an edit war.). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.251.253.147 (talk) 12:42, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The article is back to the status quo ante (i.e. yesterday's version), and I have semi-protected it for a few days to "encourage" talk page discussion. Favonian (talk) 17:25, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Notification of request for comment

An RfC has been commenced at MOSCAPS Request for comment - Capitalise universe.

Cinderella157 (talk) 03:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Capitalization of universe

There is currently a discussion about the capitalization of Universe at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters § Capitalization of universe. Please feel free to comment there. —sroc 💬 13:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

What were the results? Over at Universe it's capitalized. --Fixuture (talk) 23:21, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

End of universe?

Is there any way where the universe does not end?

GavinSlavin (talk) 17:04, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

No. It either runs out of energy down to 0 degrees Kelvin (long time though) or end in a big crunch singularity. Do you mean an end of time, a end to space, or an end to spacetime? If it expands forever, it does not actually end, in a logic sense.Arianewiki1 (talk) 04:31, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Eternal Expansion

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap151206.html

70.189.251.205 (talk) 11:48, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

QM. Quite irrelevant. Arianewiki1 (talk) 06:55, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Predictive Abilities

Perhaps someone should point out that while we talk about predicting billions of years in the future, we can barely predict local cosmic events accurately for more than a few hours/days: the weather. So perhaps some more skepticism needs to be brought forth on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.26.54.8 (talk) 03:33, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Nope. I think the right degree of skepticism is in place. If you decide to tailor your investments based on the predictions here, you can always complain after events fail to come true in the next few terayears. Tarl N. (discuss) 03:41, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Do you have any specific suggestions? Wwhhllrr (talk) 09:06, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Role of the shape of the universe

In the section Role of the shape of the universe - I wonder if the curve for Ω=1 shouldn't be drawn asymptomatic to some horizontal line, since the universe keeps expanding forever but never reaching a certain size. The text describes it as asymptotic. Otherwise there is no difference between flat and open universe. Thank you PelicanTwo (talk) 12:31, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

The ultimate fate of an expanding universe depends on the matter density Ω_M and the dark energy density Ω_Λ.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ultimate fate of the universe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051223150316/http://www.pma.caltech.edu:80/Courses/ph136/yr2002/chap27/0227.1.pdf to http://www.pma.caltech.edu/Courses/ph136/yr2002/chap27/0227.1.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:10, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Role of the shape of the universe

hi there.

in the "Role of the shape of the universe" part, i didn`t get whats with the triangle. where do they come in place? המטבח (talk) 20:53, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Big Freeze section

There is a comment stating: ...produce another Big Bang in $10^{10^{56}}$ years... The reference cited (Spontaneous Inflation and Origin of the Arrow of Time), includes a similar number, $10^{-10^{10^{56}}}$ in equation 45 on page 25, but this is not a timeframe, it's the "probability for the spontaneous onset of eternal inflation". There is no time component in that probability (unless by implication, Planck time), so it cannot be simply inverted and converted to years. This needs to be revised by someone who understands the article. Tarl N. (discuss) 05:40, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

It's been six months, I've removed the statement. The author had misunderstood the article, it needs to be gone. Tarl N. (discuss) 04:22, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

End of time

Hi everyone, did you hear about this work about the possible end of time? It could be added to this article... does anyone have an opinion?--Jean trans h+ (talk) 13:14, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Posthuman impact not stated

According to Ray Kurzweil, it is possible that our descendants will ultimately decide the fate of the universe. I believe this is an important theory that should be added to the possible fates. (Thank you for the spelling correction!) Also, don't you think that kind of perspective is kind of bleak?... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.162.55.230 (talk) 22:43, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I suspect you meant descendants. Decedents is a term meaning those who have died. Either way, Kurzweil's speculations are rather thoroughly self-inflated. It takes a spectacular amount of arrogance to assume our species will even make a mark on the universe (outside of our own planet, where that mark is already indelible), let alone decide the fate of the universe. Frankly, the evidence that we'll even survive the next couple of centuries isn't encouraging. Tarl N. (discuss) 22:02, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ultimate fate of the universe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110514230003/http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/ to http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pma.caltech.edu/Courses/ph136/yr2002/chap27/0227.1.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:41, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

The Possibility of the Collapse of the Universe

The possibility arises, according to Stephen Hawking's 'The Beginning of Time' webpage at www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html, that the No Boundary Proposal implies that the universe will Collapse. To quote Stephen Hawking "Because it [the no boundary proposal] requires that the universe is finite in space, as well as in imaginary time, it implies that the universe will re-collapse eventually. " Unfortunately, the Mathematical details of the No Boundary Proposal are not entirely clear to me (some sketch indications are verbally given upon the Hartle-Hawking state page where, for instance, it states that "The precise form of the Hartle–Hawking state is the path integral over all D-dimensional geometries that have the required induced metric on their boundary. ") The Hartle-Hawking state is related to the no boundary proposal - as it states that "Thus, the Hartle–Hawking state universe has no beginning, but it is not the steady state universe of Hoyle; it simply has no initial boundaries in time nor space.".

The issue of what would happen to the accumulated entropy of the collapsing universe is something that is worthy of consideration. Stephen Hawking states : "The universe will get more and more lumpy and irregular, as it gets smaller, and disorder will increase."

So the Second Law of Thermodynamics doesn't get contravened - or so it appears. ASavantDude (talk) 19:08, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

An eternally expanding Universe

There may be strong consensus amongst cosmologists arguing that the universe is "flat" and will continued to "expand forever". However, it seems unlikely that such clear consensus can be agreed. There are, for instance, theories such as Quintessence that argue that "quintessence can be either attractive or repulsive" - which, presumably, allows for some cyclic cosmology.

The key issue ought to relate to what is true concerning the best scientific theory, and not just what the consensus states.

ASavantDude (talk) 16:31, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Continuing on from above. If the truth is not known concerning the ultimate fate of the universe (for instance, the universe is said to be flat within a certain percentage of error - but this does not preclude the possibility that the universe might have slightly positive, or negative, curvature and this has an impact upon the ultimate fate of the universe), then this should be clearly stated. That is, that the truth concerning the ultimate fate of the universe is still highly speculative. There are many other issues worth raising, such as what enables a theory to be 'true' insofar as Popper's falsificationism goes, and whether notions of falsificationism are affected in any way by quantum phenomena. I note that the 'Shape of the Universe' pages states that "the observable universe is flat with only a 0.4% margin of error.", this does not preclude the possibility that the universe is not flat (nor does it indicate what the sources of the 0.4% margin of error actually are). I will look into the matter more.

ASavantDude (talk) 09:20, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

What would Stephen Hawking say?

According to : http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html "What does the no boundary proposal predict for the future of the universe? Because it requires that the universe is finite in space, as well as in imaginary time, it implies that the universe will re-collapse eventually. However, it will not re-collapse for a very long time, much longer than the 15 billion years it has already been expanding."

So Stephen Hawking clearly believed re-collapse follows theoretically from one of his theories (arguably a major theory of his). I do not know what experimental observations the no boundary theory makes, but it is possible that Hawking's theories are compatible with a cyclic model of the universe.

ASavantDude (talk) 15:22, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

make page: Finite lifespan universe (use as a redirection: noncyclic universe (negations should be avoided as the first definitions); with a start and an end)

• finite lifespan (but not necessarily size) universe

It doesn't matter if you adhere or not to this theory. We should write all articles. Say negative comments in the article but don't censor it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4104:8A81:BD9B:6258:9D18:562D (talk) 08:13, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

The universe will never die...

...and humanity will intelligently decide its fate, according to American futurist Ray Kurzweil: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lAJkDrBCA6k -- Maxeto0910 (talk) 18:35, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

The Big Slurp is NOT an option for the end of the universe

False vacuum decay (Big Slurp) is not an option for the end of the universe. Even if the Big Slurp starts somewhere in the universe now, only a portion of universe will be destroyed while most of the universe would still be safe because galaxies 4,200 megaparsecs (13,698,567,863 light-years) away from each other will see each other moving away faster than the speed of light while the Big Slurp cannot expand faster than the speed of light.

So the Big Slurp is a Universe Destroyer instead of a Universe Terminator. It will hurt our universe badly, but cannot kill it completely.

See this YouTube video by Kurzgesagt for details: http://youtube.com/watch?v=ijFm6DxNVyI

2001:8003:9008:1301:91FF:190E:A800:1B4D (talk) 00:46, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

"Death of everything" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Death of everything and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 16 § Death of everything until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. MB 03:11, 16 December 2022 (UTC)