What end of the universe? Recent publicized observations from the Hubble space telescope have shown the the universe is vastly bigger than previously thought. However, the speed of light is so low that much of it may have disappeared eons ago, and we'd just don't know it yet.
No answers to my questions, and not a single reference to any known expert in the field, (as already requested by Amos, and unanswered) so we know nothing about what Gray Rooster's terms might mean. It's in the academic journals, and at seminars and symposia that one finds the real meat, not in the pop magazines. Some science writers are pretty good at writing up a popular account, but that's not always the case. And a few scientists have done well, too (as in Scientific American), and Carl Sagan and Isaac Asimov. The latter had been a physicist, but not a terribly good one, and found pop fiction to be his real forte, and knew how to make a lot sound scientific.
Every schoolkid can expound on black holes, but the precise modeling and it's solution are beyond me, so I only know the highlights and jargon of the pop pap.
As I pointed out with respect to music, harmony is advanced in practice, but remains extremely primative in theory, so we really don't have much theory of harmony in the field of music, let alone elsewhere.
I forgot to note in connection with Paul Dirac's note above that I've had his book on quantum mechanics for about 30 years, but have not as yet managed to get through much of it. The Hamiltonian (Hamilton was a real genius during his all too brief periods of sobriety) model for the harmonic oscillator (a simple model which has not been found in nature. Vander Pol did some good work or real oscillators in electonics, and one can treat quantum mechanical models of coupled systems of anharmonic oscillators reasonably well by perturbation theory or Wave Shaefer's contact transformation theory) and adaption it to the Scroedinger equation and the subseqent solution is the most short and elegant treatment of it I've ever seen, indeed, almost magical.
And while we're at magical, my congratulations to Paul his return from the dead, but could you please give us a hint about how you acomplished that? I'm getting old, and haven't nearly completed all I want to do, so it is a matter of no small practical inportance to me. 4 books reported a similar occurance of a case about 1964 years ago, but these were written long after the event from hearsay, and their accounts are at some variance with each other, and all in all it seems a bit suspect.
As to my credentials, you can find me in Who's Who in the East, and American Men of Science, but real worth is in Citation Abstracts, where reference to your work by others is noted. That tells you where you stand in the field. (Of course, some are there many times, because many others published papers proving their work was all wrong). I am also co-inventor of laser stark and laser Zeeman spectroscopy (the latter now called LMR- laser magnetic resonance spectoscopy) as reference to Science, 1972, and a US patent will show. (That was a little showpiece on the side, not my main work. Administration wanted some pop to make a splash before the public for budget reasons, and that was the best our paltry imaginations could come up with). I've got about 55 publications in academic journals. I didn't do as well as my English acquaintance Harry K. (a Steeleye Span addict). He got one of those Nobel thingies. (All the other Nobelies I knew were older than me and have all died, even G.H. last year. Everybody was using the theory in G.H.'s book for analysis of data, until I found it wouldn't fit my very good data, so I had to correct it. G. H. didn't much like it at first, but finally admitted that he had missed the boat. That's what makes a good scientist and great man, admitting your mistakes. Everybody makes them, some time or other. In that paper in Science above, nobody caught about the simplest possible mistake. Our theoretician's oversight ended up in our having the sign of the charge on the electron wrong, and nobody ever bothers to check on such simple-minded things.)
Some errors are rather humorous. We did a paper where we were supposed to use only SI units, so reported our pressures in Pascals-Pa. The Journal's copy editor obviously had an electrical enginering background, because in the galley proofs we got back we found the pressures had been changed to pA - picoAmperes. I hit an extremely rare type of Coriolis interraction in the rotational structure of a degenerate fundamental vibration that I couldn't find that anyone had treated before, so I set up the Hamiltionian and next had to solve it. I decided to do both by perturbation theory and the contact transformation method. The multiplictive factors of physical constants and rotational constants were the same in both cases, but the factor involving the frequencies of the interracting vibrations came out differently. That was perplexing, and even more perplexing was when I put the numbers for the frequencies in I got out practically the same result (well within experimental error). There was no transformation that could turn one of the frequency expressions into the other. I still don't know which method is the more reliable. Perhaps this will fall into Gray Rooster's 99.9999% simple physics, and he will enlighten me.