Universe End

By Irfan Basharat

The end of universe is a popular topic among religion,

philosophy and science; while arguments provoked
an unending debate among the intelligent of past,
present and future that whether the entire system
including our universe will end or the materialized or
immaterialized system beyond our universe will work
but just we lean toward our ultimate fate with all the
passion, desire and the intelligence. We still are in
confusion about the boundaries of universe, which of
course is not an entire picture, that whether a
universe we are living in is an open or close spot. The
intelligent being do never like to be a part of
mathematical probability for its new or same version
so it is running hard for some worm hole to run
quicker then universe death. As we are going farther,
our expertise is leaning great but our expanding
universe is letting the entire piece of information away
from us. There is a desire and hope that we will come
back after some time due to a fact of ever going pure
nothingness. Lets discuss whether we are rushing
toward a Big Chill or Big Crunch.

So

many

scientific

theories

and

imaginary

philosophies are present to describe nature of our

universe but unfortunately they all went fruitless,

sometimes I think its fortunate that we still are in
hunt. Anyhow I will divide those all philosophies in
three groups. First group is trying universe with pure
scientific approach with no creator and they have
certain logics for this theory however unproven.
Second philosophy urges on creator but they never
believe in any logic or science behind the whole
system, this group too is not logic less but hardcore.
Third group believe in partial truth of both first and
second philosophies. They believe in the creator but
strongly recommend all aspects of this universe
scientific and logical.

From Aristotle to Stephen Hawking, every scientist

is trying to estimate what, how and why our universe
is? But all efforts fail to find any ultimate result. It is
possible that some day we might find some realistic
version of universe but hunting for our universes
version, I mean crisp and complete version, is harshly
impossible or may need infinite levels of logics.

It

should be realized that the term I have used is Level

of Logics rather version of Logics.

Aristotle believed that earth and space are

completely different things; nature has prompted
everything on earth in rest, on the other hand natural
state of space objects is motion. He also proposed
that earth is in the centre of universe and everything
is revolving around it. Some Greeks proposed that
sun is the centre of universe and earth is revolving
around the sun. Copernicus in 1514 published his
work that supported motion of earth and other planet
around a sun but he was not appreciated in his time.
In 1609, when Galileo discovered moons of Jupiter
and placed his theory that earth and other planets
revolve around a sun with very good arguments but
due to lack of interest in science among religious
communities, he was sent in prison where he died
after several years. This act somehow formulated that
theory popular in some communities, which resulted
into a new model of planetary motion in a form of
ellipses.

The

work

was

produced

by

German

mathematician Johannes Kepler. He crossly believed

that there must be some sort of attraction between
these planets but was unable to provide any reason

with some logic. Anyhow Sir Isaac Newton, in 1687,

published his work Philosophiae Naturalis Principia
Mathematica in which he not only proposed but also
derived mathematical model for planetary motion. He
also provided us with Universal Law of Gravitation.
According to this law, each body of our universe
attracts every other body with a force which is directly
proportional to product of their masses and inversely
proportional to square of distance between them. It
simply means that by increasing a mass of any one or
all objects, we are increasing their gravitational force
but increase of distance represent decrease of
gravitational pull. He realized that it is impossible to
have static state in stars due to his own theory of
universal gravitation. Due to a mentioned problem he
suggested that universe is either finite or infinite.
Afterwards it was proposed that stars were burning
from an infinite past and will certainly to an infinite
future resulted into a new theory of infinite universe.
This theory of infinite universe was proposed because
finite universe mean a universe with some central
point, central point always claim that everything
originated from the origin and will certainly seized
back to it. It should be realized that an infinite

structure never has a single central point rather

infinite central points because every point is able to
claim an infinite distance from infinity.

This theory was criticized by a famous German

philosopher Heinrich Olbers. He said if all this story of
infinity is right then how and why we are experiencing
dim light of stars. It was proposed due to his genuine
argument that there must be some non observable
principal matter but he refuted by saying, if there is
some

principal

matter

either

observable

or

unobservable it must shine due to continuous

absorption of emitted light from infinite number of
stars from infinite ages. Anyhow after immense
research work by different scientists, theory of Big
Bang put its flees on and become a most popular
argumentation. Lets jump deep into this theory.

In a history of human observation, two theories

gained so much popularity due to strong criticism on
their nature. A keen observation of both theories
reveals that both are somehow interconnected and/or
can help with little modification. These both are no
other then, Theory of evolution by Darwin and Theory

of Big Bang. Big Bang has prepared a new flavor of

universe by supporting finite boundaries of our
system, it also suggests that universe has some start
and will eventually die one day. This was a real shock
for all supporters of infinite universe and everlasting
life. Many communities willingly accepted it due to its
nature of a hope A real hope toward a hunt of our
system. According to the standard theory, somewhere
in past there was nothing and eventually something
has appeared by a process of vacuum fluctuation or
singularity? Physical laws were seized at that stage.
The early universe appears approximately 13 to 15
billion years ago, when our universe started with
immense amount of energy in the form of matter (+)
and antimatter (-) which were in equal amount and
due to their asymmetrical movement, they collided
with each other and destroyed each other by creating
pure energy. Expansion of universe resulted in a fall
of temperature, which prepared particle like Baryons,
photons, neutrinos, electrons and quarks. Further fall
in temperature cooked proton and neutron. This
complex synthesis process engaged more and more
sophistication and resulted into a simplest life on
planet. The phenomenal changes into simplest life

resulted into multi-cellular living beings, which further

developed into multicultural beings with immense
intelligence to think in mysterious past matters.

According to big bang, our universe is expanding

and it will continue until there is enough matter in it.
Afterwards due to strong gravitational forces, it will
collapse into singularity. It might be possible that in
the absence of strong gravitational forces, that let the
universe collapse, it will expand forever and universe
will never end. It simply means there are two different
forces working in the universe. One is trying to get
things run out and due to this; our universe is
expanding with ever increasing rate. On other hand
gravitational forces are trying to get things stable in
fixed

orbits.

basic

difference

between

both

assumptions is their finite and infinite life of expanding

construction. I am little uncomfortable with both
assumption but I will discuss it later. Anyhow, the first
ever clear and complete idea for a structure of
universe was given by Albert Einstein. He believed
that there is no separation between past and future
and that we are running after blended concepts of
illusionary time. I precisely find this theory or thought

little frightening as I am unable to find any clue of its

acceptability, even a simple philosophy of time can
easily provide enough logical reasons regarding its
uncertain nature.
Ingredient independent conditions are not mentally
viable (at least the intelligence we have or due to the
product of system laws and our intelligence) but if
they exist due to I dont know how, their blend can
never be mingled in irreversible way.

I mean if time is ingredient independent then it is

possible to think of any nature of time either present,
past or future or/and something else too. One thing is
slightly common in Einstein and Stephen hawking,
they both believe in no boundary universe.
One could say: The boundary condition of
the universe is that it has no boundary. The universe
would be completely self-contained and not affected
by anything outside itself. It would neither be created
nor destroyed, it would just BE
A brief history of time, chapter-8

Any

question

leading

toward

self

contained

environment under seized laws of nature is certainly

impossible at least by analyzing current status of
universe. Self contained universe itself need high
quality, rational and unique beyond the laws blueprint.
It was/is able to produce laws and always remain
dominated over them but in a case of our universe,
whole

story

is

opposite.

If

this

universe

is

independently self-contained then how it is working

under its own laws and why? If there was nothing in
start, I mean even singularity was not a part of
absolute nothingness, then it is pretty sure that there
were no laws present in any form and of any nature
but

letting

nothingness

singularity
must

as

need

part

some

of

laws.

absolute
Born

of

something is parallel or simultaneous to a born of law.

I mean emergence of singularity needs some law, its
a different story that whether we can imagine it or not.

Here I also like to discuss another sparkling topic of

infinite space having finite mass. Finite mass is
understandable but infinite space is interestingly
impractical

and

unfeasible.

Space-Time

is

combination of three-dimensional space with an extra

dimension of time; its co-ordinates can be shown as

(X, Y, Z, T). According to Einstein's special relativity,
space-time is indispensably complete and unified unit
with no possibility of ultimate separation. Coming to a
point, infinite space is only possible with independent
universe with no intervention from outside but our
universe

is

governing

under

laws.

Only

two

possibilities are here for this sort of environment,

either our universe has produced these laws or some
outer source interrupted this. In both cases, source
should govern these laws but practical observations
are fairly different so either we have to change entire
scenario or must think of outer source. It must be
considered that any self-contained entity must have or
produce ultimate intelligence Independence mean
domination and domination always need intelligence.

It is highly believed that fate of our universe is

highly dependent on the shapes of universe. There
are three mutually accepted universe shapes among
all cosmologist i.e. Open universe, Close universe
and Flat universe. For close universe, just imagine a
spherical ball whose every point is curve as compared
to each other point; at a same time every point can be

considered as a flat unit in its own. I sometime feel

this version of universe as a very optimistic to have
realistic plane of scouting; it owns us slight chance to
measure

different

unknown

attributes

of

this

mysterious place. We already know how to measure a

sphere; if someday we will be able to find even a
single truth about only two points of our universes
border, we will certainly measure unlimited hidden
attributes mechanically but I am afraid about rate of
our technological advancement. Close universe also
suggest stoppage of overall expansion of whole
universe due to gravitational force. Further on it also
assume collapse of whole system to singularity. It is
little surprising to me because it means that
probability measures will again set the creation in
anytime and the whole drama will start again. I am
also very worried about this space-time; I mean its
little indigestible that space-time will end otherwise we
must look again on space-time nature. It is very
obvious that we are not driving space-time but we are
moving from it; I mean what so ever we are doing is
permanently added into space-time and if this is
something discreet as well ingredient independent

then it is unimaginable that space-time will meet same

fate.

Open universe state that if there is not enough

mass present in our universe then gravitational forces
can never stop the expansion. This never stopped
expansion leads toward infinity or eternity. Actually a
most basic problem with independently unbalanced
intelligence is a practice to think positive about an
intelligence holder. I think this concept Open
universe is challenging and pure acceptance of this
principal is a negation of all sorts of anthropic
principles. It is fairly very difficult to throw out
Anthropic principal from a show. A most surprising
outcome of this principal is in ever expansion and
eternity. Eternity to what?. I mean it is illogical to
believe that after some sort of negligible gravitational
field or at a very state of independence (I like to clear
that state of independence will come even for any
piece of time), life will survive. If life will not survive
then whats a use to think of eternity, it simply means
that universe eternity will not come before life
elimination. If ever expansion is right then we must
think that what will happen in a state of pure

independence. I think when expansion supporting

forces will try to break pure independence, some
dramatic changes might occur but Hollywood might
not present at that time or have enough time to
release a new block buster on a theme. Next story
may begin after or during pure independence; my
problem is that I am unable to satisfy my intellect that
what will expand in those moment? Someone may
argue that space-time will expand. If space-time will
expand then what is expanding actually. I mean to
say that expansion always loose it state if nothing real
left or in simpler terms, expansion is said as
expansion

if

there

is

something

expanding.

Whenever there is something to expand, for which

expansion is said as expansion, then expanding force
will certainly loose it effect with a passage of time. In
short, nothing to expand means impossible expansion
but something to expand mean finite expansion.
Lets discuss flat universe, it states that expansion
building force is/was/will be exactly same as a matter
contain in a universe. Due to this, gravitational force
and expansion force can never put things in their
pocket and universe will expand for infinity. It is fairly

impossible for many reason, we all know that universe

is expanding with increasing rate and increasing
expansion cannot satisfy equivalent forces. It is also
very difficult to grasp infinite expansion of universe
due to equal forces; let me say that even open
universe cannot expand for ever within space-time. It
might be possible that some people take my thought
somehow rough but let me clear you that even in the
absence of

gravitational force, ever expansion

phenomenon will never accomplish due to a fact that

ever expansion phenomenon somehow has to
expand space-time. One thing is really funny, ever
expansion

need

infinite

expansion

force

to

accomplish a task and if for a reason we just suppose

infinite expansion force then our universe will certainly
demand some infinite production of mass from human
race because finite start can never produce infinite
mass or even infinite end The thing which start will
certainly end.
Here I like to mention that one of the most
fascinating flavors of science is theoretical physics
and of course by thinking theoretical physics the only
stunning and wonderful person come in any mind is
Stephen Hawking. His beliefs, thoughts and personal

views have given new style to science and of course

a better understanding of our universe. Anyhow, I like
to share personal feelings of Stephen Hawking
regarding universe fate.
For thousands of years, people have wondered
about the universe. Did it stretch out forever or was
there a limit? And where did it all come from? Did the
universe have a beginning, a moment of creation? Or
had the universe existed forever? The debate
between these two views raged for centuries without
reaching any conclusions. Personally, Im sure that
the universe began with a hot Big Bang. But will it go
on forever? If not, how will it end? Im much less
certain about that. The expansion of the universe
spreads everything out, but gravity tries to pull it all
back together again. Our destiny depends on which
force will win.
Stephen Hawking
I have studied almost every theory related to
universe death, infinite universe and eternal universe
but every time I read, I got a same feeling. Every
theory is claiming its certainty by same rules. I
sometimes feel that all these discussions are useless

because even yet we are running after delusion of our

fantasies. A first useful step must be taken to
rationally imagine a true start and this all can be
accomplished by trying to gather true philosophical,
theoretical and/or practical facts. My first question is
from were this all matter, energies, galaxies, universe,
intelligence and knowledge come from? The only
answer is given by Stephen Hawking by capitalizing
theory of everything in front, which claims absolute
nothingness and let me say this is an ultimate colorful
end of human imagination. I never understand
concept of absolute nothingness having powerful
singularity in it and funny thing is that it was waiting
for I dont know what and then boom I dont know
when into this whole universe I dont know how. I
am

very

suspicious

that

where

that

absolute

nothingness was at those moments? What was a

nature

of

absolute

nothingness? What

causes

absolute nothingness a concept of pure nothingness

by having singularity in it? What prompted that state
of ultimate unity banged? What was the shape of
singularity in absolute nothingness? How a state of
uniform

nature

can

be

disturbed

without

any

disturbance? Was absolute nothingness finite or

infinite? I already know a reply that these all questions

are meaningless regarding absolute nothingness but
let me tell you, these questions are meaningless for
absolute nothingness but not for something having
something in it. Now at the end of this discussion my
last question is;

How a finite nature can bake infinity or eternity?