• IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    180
    ·
    6 months ago

    The last stars will burn out in 120 trillion years

    We think. We still haven’t solved things like the dark matter/energy problem. The answer to that alone could drastically change what we estimate will happen in the distant future.

    • Afaithfulnihilist@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      48
      ·
      6 months ago

      Stuff only burns for so long. We might learn more about the geometry of space and that there is more out there at greater distances where maybe even other Big bangs are possible but there is a certain maximum amount of time that a star can exist.

      Over the time scales of the life of a proton the maximum variability in the amount of time a star can burn is a rounding error against the scale of numbers needed to express the amount of time it takes for hawking radiation to reduce black holes to ultra long wavelengths of infrared radiation.

      • faintwhenfree@lemmus.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        29
        ·
        6 months ago

        Yes, but we don’t have proof that universe can’t generate new matter. For all we know there is a mechanism in universe not yet observed that can create new matter out of little vacuum and more stars will keep forming.

        So technically all we can say is, it’s likely that stars will die out in 1000 trillion years.

        • ubergeek@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          28
          ·
          6 months ago

          Yes, but we don’t have proof that universe can’t generate new matter.

          True… we also don’t have proof there isn’t a tea pot orbiting our Sun since it’s creation, either.

          However, there’s also a complete lack of evidence of it.

          You cannot prove a negative. The evidence says no new matter can be created. No evidence that new matter gets created. Therefore, we work on the model of no new matter creation.

          • FishFace@piefed.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            15
            ·
            6 months ago

            On these scales, the accuracy of our observations should reduce our confidence though. It doesn’t make sense to confidently say that, in 200 trillion years there will be no stars, because our observations of the rate of new matter creation (approximately zero) have a margin of error which allows for there to still be some

            • ubergeek@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              9
              ·
              6 months ago

              Until evidence shows otherwise, new matter being created doesnt fit our observations.

              Go prove that wrong! Win yourself a Nobel prize in physics! That’s what science is about!

              • FishFace@piefed.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                7
                ·
                6 months ago

                New matter being created with extremely low probability fits perfectly with our observations.

                • ubergeek@lemmy.today
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  A teapot created with out solar system orbiting the sun fits our models, with an extremely low probability.

                  However, we dont work on that assumption being true.

              • SkyeStarfall
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                7
                ·
                6 months ago

                I do also want to point out that stuff like “The conservation of energy” law, in other words, that energy cannot be created or destroyed, does not hold for our universe with our current models. An expanding universe violates the time-translation symmetry

                This is our current models. This is what our current physics says. And we know it’s incomplete.

                When it comes to scientific predictions, you always, always, need the caveat, “under our current model of”.

          • tempest@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            6 months ago

            So if all the existing matter came from the big Bang, is it possible to condense it all back into one place?

          • SorryQuick@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            6 months ago

            But in this case, this “theory” has a precedent. This energy and matter we have now must have come from somewhere. Whatever your personal belief on the matter is, what’s to say that event can’t happen again? If a god created the universe, then surely he can pump some more into it.

            • ubergeek@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              6 months ago

              Matter and energy can be converted. So, its possible it was never created, it just always was.

              • SorryQuick@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                6 months ago

                That’s something I’ll never be able to understand. Something having no beginning. Just like I’ll never be able to understand a moment before the big bang, or at the moment of the singularity, where time did could not exist. If there’s no time, how can anything, like the big bang, happen? Unfortunately the singularity is something we know nothing about whatsoever, and probably will never know.

        • MinnesotaGoddam@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          6 months ago

          like how we thought black holes were ever-growing inescapable masses and then we learned about hawking radiation.

    • iloveDigit@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      6 months ago

      We also haven’t tried every possible configuration of atoms to see if anything creates a portal to an infinite energy dimension or a perpetual motion machine or something we can use to make our own stars

      • Small_Quasar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        6 months ago

        Infinite energy is cheating. Same with travelling backwards in time.

        My intuition tells me the universe doesn’t allow cheaters.

        But then I’m just an evolved bag of water cells clinging onto a clump of rock so what the fuck do I know?

        • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          Time travel is allowed for under our current models. Or rather, time travel doesn’t affect most parts of the current models, so it’s not cheating.

              • Axolotl@feddit.it
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                6 months ago

                I once reas a theory abou you needing to go faster than the speed of light which is not possible theorically

                PS: i am not a scientist i don’t know much, only some basic shit i learned for curiosity

        • MinnesotaGoddam@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          wait, i thought the heavier elements were star poop, and black holes poop either electrons or positrons i can’t remember.

          • MotoAsh@piefed.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            6 months ago

            Only up to iron is star poop. Anything heavier tends to be created by novae of various sizes. Technically nothing comes from the black hole, but many of the very heavy elements are birthed along side black holes.

    • gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      I mean, have you considered that the expansion of the universe generates or increases the total energy in the universe?

      As stars move apart, they gain both potential energy with respect to other stars, because greater distance from gravity sources means greater potential energy, but they also gain kinetic energy as they accelerate away from other objects. So, their mechanical energy (potential + kinetic energy) increases over time. Maybe somebody could build a clever machine out of this to harvest that energy?

  • Frezik
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    51
    ·
    6 months ago

    Also see Dyson’s Eternal Intelligence:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson's_eternal_intelligence

    Basically, if you assume it’s possible to upload our intelligence to a computer and run it, then you can keep the energy going to run it for a very, very long time. Well past the heat death of the rest of the universe. It depends on running things in an on and off state to conserve energy for trillions of years. Subjectively, the people in there wouldn’t notice that and would simply see their active lifespans go for trillions of years. It’s not clear what the limit would actually be.

    It’s something like Zeno’s Paradox. You cut things in half each cycle, but never quite get to zero.

  • ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    41
    ·
    6 months ago

    This is the main reason why, if you come across a genie in a lamp, you should probably not wish for immortality. You’re gonna be hellafuckin bored for a loooooooong time.

    • markovs_gun@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      6 months ago

      I feel like reading this story is an internet nerd Rite of Passage. It had a huge impact on me when I read it as a teenager and I think about it a lot.

  • DarkFuture@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    6 months ago

    We’re doing a pretty bang up job of making that one second as stupid and painful as possible.

  • FilthyShrooms@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    6 months ago

    That’s neat, stars are just the sparks after the big bang, and “soon” that energy will be gone. Even with all the bad shit happening, it makes me happy to be alive in this beautifully short window of time in the universe, even if our little dust speck circling a spark is a bit fucked up sometimes

  • HyonoKo@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    6 months ago

    I think the passing of time, as in waiting, is an experience of the mind. Without a waiting mind, the length of time is just another number out there, like the distance between the edges of the universe. If after the dark finale of this universe there exists another event that spawns a conscious mind, there is no actual waiting happening between this universe bright, starry second and the next one.

    • whotookkarl@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      6 months ago

      Time can stretch and squish and follow physical rules, if the passage of time is an experience of the mind time itself would remain existent without minds just as real as distance and the passage of distance via movement between objects would remain without minds.

      One interesting thing I heard is the DESI data from a telescope observatory in Arizona that was trying to build a more accurate map of the universe identified the dark energy acceleration as slowing. That could mean if the trend continues eventually gravity will overpower dark energy and everything collapses back together again. I don’t think it’s conclusive, but it is evidence maybe heat death isn’t an ending phase.

    • kazerniel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      6 months ago

      Reminds me of that Kurzgesagt video about Optimistic Nihilism:

      “If you don’t remember the 13.75 billion years that went by before you existed, then the trillions and trillions and trillions of years that come after will pass in no time once you’re gone. Close your eyes. Count to 1. That’s how long forever feels.”

    • humorlessrepost@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      6 months ago

      The black holes evaporate eventually.

      After that, depends on who you ask. Most physicists would say something like “as close to nothing as possible”. Penrose would say at a certain point when nothing can interact with anything else, distance loses meaning, which makes the universe and a singularity equivalent, so then things restart.

    • markovs_gun@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      6 months ago

      From what I understand, the universe would just be in equilibrium. Nothing but cold particles floating around.

      • polydactyl@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        6 months ago

        A recent discovery might suggest that we happen to be in a big void, and that a great amount of the universe is much much denser than where we are or what we have observed. If true, Big Crunch time bby

  • 4grams@awful.systems
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    Honestly, this factoid is the closest thing to a real Total Perspective Vortex that I’ve ever felt.

    • 𝄞 Inkstain (they/them)𓆩 𓆪@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      What’s that phenomenon that describes noticing things more after you become aware of them because I’m seeing a lot more Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy references than I remember now that I’ve started reading it

      • mkwt@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        6 months ago

        And Hawking radiation. Hawking radiation is pretty “dark” for solar-mass scale black holes and up, but it can become relatively very intense for smaller holes.

        For the holes we observe astronomically, the things we can see are the accretion disks and the orbits of stars around the black hole.

        • Frezik
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          6 months ago

          But that happens because of matter falling into them, right? When they’ve already swallowed everything, there’s not going to be accretion disks.

          • Björn@swg-empire.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            6 months ago

            Yeah, though eventually they should all evaporate one after another with a last huge tiny energy burst due to hawking radiation. But that will take a looooooooong ass time. And we still don’t know (might never know) if hawking radiation is real.

            • MotoAsh@piefed.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              6 months ago

              They said the same thing about the curvature of spacetime 100 years ago. Then it was proven like three years later.