Retard here! Looking things about cosmology in wikipedia, I

>>8441825
Cosmology? I think >>/fa/ is where you should be.

>>8441839
It is a serious question... for me.

>>8441851
I was serious too. Cosomolgy is makeup and shit right? So that goes in fa

>>8441853
Cosmotology = Cosmology. Are you serious?

>>8441851
If the energy content of the universe is sufficient wrt the shape of spacetime, you can get situations where universal expansion reverses and the universe collapses back down to big bang conditions.
Or protons may have a halflife (weird) in which case baryonic matter would cease to be in 100 billion years and that would also be an end.
Or all sorts of crazy wacky things to keep you up all night.

>>8441825
I think whoever wrote that wiki article is a popscientist at best. They probably think that "quantum mechanics" means anything is possible in the universe. It's an absolute joke and has no backing in the mathematics of cosmology. It's equivalent to a philosopher saying "we can't know nuthin therefore anything and everything is possible"

>>8441825
It basically just says "dark matter/energy is a thing we made up to explain why the universe is expanding so don't pay too much attention to predictions on the fate of the universe that involve either of those things"

>>8441865
>>8441856
Practically this article tells me that the universe can be finished just why yes?

Ok ... then this article is stupid?

>>8441915
From the passage I can't say the whole article is stupid, but it is on an entirely speculative article so I wouldn't worry too much about it unless you plan on doing cosmological research. The cosmological constant is one of the most ill understood things in all of physics, and tied to whatever the article is talking about.

>>8441925
Well, trying to find more about what speaks the article I can not find anything, it's just that, nothing more.

So ... why that is marketed as an end of the universe? As I said, I have not found anything more about this, instead of the others "End of the universe" I find a lot of information.

>>8441941
I don't know what you mean, sorry. The article seems to just be saying we don't know for sure about the cosmology of the early universe (and present universe). Dark matter and dark energy are not understood and the future and past of our universe depend on both.

>>8441970
Basically this article only says "We do not know the composition of dark matter and dark energy so we know nothing"? (As well as you said)