NationStates Jolt Archive

Recently, in school, we learned about entropy, and that one day, all energy in the universe will have turned into thermal energy, which holds no free nergy, thus it becomes impossible for any system or structure to sustain itself. This means in something like 1*10^27 years (which is a deadly long time, imagine you didn't shave for so long), the universe will be an endless stretch of cold, dead nothingness with a few unbound subatomic particles scattered all about.

Thinking of a time 100000000000000000000000.... years in the future is frightening in itself :(:, but the imagination that at a certain point, only a cold, dead universe will keep expanding into infinity, is horrible :eek:. Is there no hope?

On the other hand, there are those that suppose that life will survive into all eternity, be it for theological reasons or because they assume evolution will find a way out of this.:D

You can find all this on Wikipedia as well, and some pretty interesting related stuff, like The Second Law of Thermodynamics, and the Multi-World Theory

What do you think? What is to become of everything in the end? Is there an end? All opinions welcome, be they based on faith or physics or your own imagination. Please tell me what You think.

Hopefully, Jesus will come back way before then.

http://www.exitmundi.nl/exitmundi.htm

Have fun.

Actually, it looks like the evidence is swinging towards an oscillating universe rather than a heat death. Just a cycle of contraction and expansion, over and over again with no apparent end we know of. Interestingly enough, it appears that some information may survive each of the oscillations...what that may imply, if it proves to be the case, may be far more profound than anything we have discovered so far.

Hopefully, Jesus will come back way before then.

He already did. He died, tragically. There is a whole story about it.

Zombie MacGuyver will be around long before then. He'll sort out that whole entropy thing with a roll of duct tape, some bleach and a small potato.

Zombie MacGuyver will be around long before then. He'll sort out that whole entropy thing with a roll of duct tape, some bleach and a small potato.

No, Cosmic AC will solve it for us...

Zombie MacGuyver will be around long before then. He'll sort out that whole entropy thing with a roll of duct tape, some bleach and a small potato.

The thing that sucks, though, is Zombie MacGuyver doesn't do shit without a truckload of fresh brains. The legal red tape is a nightmare.

Actually, it looks like the evidence is swinging towards an oscillating universe rather than a heat death. Just a cycle of contraction and expansion, over and over again with no apparent end we know of. Interestingly enough, it appears that some information may survive each of the oscillations...what that may imply, if it proves to be the case, may be far more profound than anything we have discovered so far.

I thought that it was found the universe's expansion was accelerating, making an ocillating universe impossible barring some other thing we haven't discovered yet?

I thought that it was found the universe's expansion was accelerating, making an ocillating universe impossible barring some other thing we haven't discovered yet?

The cyclic model of string theory avoids those problems, and of course there are the dark matter and dark energy which are not adequately explained by the standard model of the universe's origin.

It's hardly resolved yet, but it's certain none of the models currently available even remotely model the process beyond a basic level with any accuracy.

Insufficient information and not enough understanding of how the universe works yet to even make an educated guess.

The cyclic model of string theory avoids those problems, and of course there are the dark matter and dark energy which are not adequately explained by the standard model of the universe's origin.

It's hardly resolved yet, but it's certain none of the models currently available even remotely model the process beyond a basic level with any accuracy.

got any links for that cyclical model? Preferrably one that's light on math?

got any links for that cyclical model? Preferrably one that's light on math?

The wikipedia article is good, if brief. A google search for it will turn up some good sources as well; I don't have any particular ones on hand, but I do know that Princeton had a good summary of the model online not too long ago.

The thing that sucks, though, is Zombie MacGuyver doesn't do shit without a truckload of fresh brains. The legal red tape is a nightmare.

Bah, red tape shmed tape. If we need brains to save the universe then we shall have brains.

The wikipedia article is good, if brief. A google search for it will turn up some good sources as well; I don't have any particular ones on hand, but I do know that Princeton had a good summary of the model online not too long ago.

Thanks. I like reading about these things, but am not particularly good with numbers. I'm more of a word guy.

Thanks. I like reading about these things, but am not particularly good with numbers. I'm more of a word guy.

Same here. 600 math, 750 verbal on my SAT...

pfft the master already solved this by building a paradox machine and allowing are new human masters to travel back in time, thus establishing a trillion year long empire....

Same here. 600 math, 750 verbal on my SAT...

Comparable, but your scores are better. 740 Verbal, 560 math

It seems reasonable to assume that the universe will not be able to support life forever. We have pretty good evidence that it has undergone extreme changes in the past, like big bang and inflation, so considering it eternally stable would be naïve.

So, if we cannot live forever here, but we want to live forever, it seems we should go living forever somewhere else. Considering that there might after all be a pretty big chunk of time to figure it out, it cannot be ruled out that we can come up with some solution. Though it might sound as improbable as it would if someone came along twenty years ago and said that anyone would ever need more than 1 megabyte of ram, we might just learn to do tricks such as reversing time, creating a few new universes, or transferring our consciousnesses to simulations running at infinite pace thus creating an illusion of the passing of eternities within the blink of an eye.

I'm afraid that the ultimate fate of the universe is that I die and everything disappears as far as I am concerned.

He already did. He died, tragically. There is a whole story about it.

Key words, "come back". He came once, yes. Are we not waiting for his return?

pfft the master already solved this by building a paradox machine and allowing are new human masters to travel back in time, thus establishing a trillion year long empire....

The Master?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/df/The_Master_Fallout.jpg

The Master?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/df/The_Master_Fallout.jpg

The Master (http://tachyontv.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/claws1.jpg)

The Master?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/df/The_Master_Fallout.jpg

Best game ever. Hands down.

The Master (http://tachyontv.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/claws1.jpg)

Meh, I like mine more.

Best game ever. Hands down.

It's definitely up there. :D

Meh, I like mine more.

I like yours better too, but I couldn't resist. Resist! Resist!
I miss the Master… :(

Key words, "come back". He came once, yes. Are we not waiting for his return?

I guess you can. But there's no precedent of coming back so I'm not holding my breath. It would be fucking awesome though.

It seems reasonable to assume that the universe will not be able to support life forever. We have pretty good evidence that it has undergone extreme changes in the past, like big bang and inflation, so considering it eternally stable would be naïve.

So, if we cannot live forever here, but we want to live forever, it seems we should go living forever somewhere else. Considering that there might after all be a pretty big chunk of time to figure it out, it cannot be ruled out that we can come up with some solution. Though it might sound as improbable as it would if someone came along twenty years ago and said that anyone would ever need more than 1 megabyte of ram, we might just learn to do tricks such as reversing time, creating a few new universes, or transferring our consciousnesses to simulations running at infinite pace thus creating an illusion of the passing of eternities within the blink of an eye.

This whole post has just the attitude towards this topic about it that I love about all the great men (and women :p) of history. To take into account the possibility that mankind could one day even create universes fo itself, that just reflects the very essence of the spirit that has driven us humans further and further in our history. I truely hope that any of the forementioned will proove pratical one day. I also think it likely that, though it might not be possible for "life" in an organic sense to exist infinitely, hyper-evolution could just as likely turn us into something very different. Maybe the human mind is bound to become the will of the quantum fabric of the universe itself? (Be it that we survive comparably minor-scale threats until that day comes, like atomic war, meteors, gray goo, fertility collapse, a deadly bio weapon outbreak, deevolution, just to name a few I have heared of...)

My position is that I do not have anywhere near enough scientific education and understanding to come up with any reasonable hypothesis, let alone a theory, and as such I will simply accept the view currently accepted by a majority of scientists, whatever that may be, and however and whenever it changes.

Vetalia: If it is possible that some information could survive, it means that information is probably the closest thing to God we will ever have in reality.

Same here. 600 math, 750 verbal on my SAT...

Comparable, but your scores are better. 740 Verbal, 560 math

700 Math 740 Verbal. Huzzah!

Anyway: Big Rip. As String Theory is at present an untested theory that we presently don't have the means to adequately test, I'm going with what we know. Since the universe is expanding at an accelerated pace, ultimately the acceleration outward due to dark energy will overcome the fundamental forces, resulting in a Big Rip.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Rip

My position is that I do not have anywhere near enough scientific education and understanding to come up with any reasonable hypothesis, let alone a theory, and as such I will simply accept the view currently accepted by a majority of scientists, whatever that may be, and however and whenever it changes.

Vetalia: If it is possible that some information could survive, it means that information is probably the closest thing to God we will ever have in reality.

I'm going with Cosmic AC, a la Asimov. From the short story "The Last Answer" found in the anthology "Robot Dreams."

Key words, "come back". He came once, yes. Are we not waiting for his return?

Hey! We've been waiting for nearly two thousand years now! I'm not going to be stood up like that, it's not like an omniscient being can claim they didn't realise the time...

Thinking of a time 100000000000000000000000.... years in the future is frightening in itself :(:, but the imagination that at a certain point, only a cold, dead universe will keep expanding into infinity, is horrible :eek:. Is there no hope

Surely, by definition, the universe cannot be describes as either hot or cold when it has attained a steady and uniform distribution of all heat energy, no?

700 Math 740 Verbal. Huzzah!

What is this "verbal" you speak of?

610 Math
610 Writing
730 Critical Reading

Beetches.

Hey! We've been waiting for nearly two thousand years now! I'm not going to be stood up like that, it's not like an omniscient being can claim they didn't realise the time...

Also omnipresent, yes? So since time is a dimension, there should be no problem whatsoever.

Vetalia: If it is possible that some information could survive, it means that information is probably the closest thing to God we will ever have in reality.

I'll just try out an argument to prove something about the survival of information, though as I have not yet completed the argument, I'm unsure as to what I'll now attempt to prove. Here goes:

IF it will ever be possible to tell whether information has survived beyond an oscillation cycle or will able to survive beyond this or a later cycle, it is thereby implied that the oscillation exits, which means that other cycles have existed or will exist in the future. This in itself is a piece of information regarding another cycle, namely its existence, proving that information survives.

In other words, we can only find out whether or not information survives if it actually does.

If it doesn't, we'll never know.

I'm aware that the above argument might contain some fallacies, as I made it all up while writing it. In the chain consisting of inspiration -> logic -> language -> fingers, the ideas did not stay at Logic Station for very long. That is because I am not very patient. You must be, however, for if you were not, then you would not have read this far.

:D

What is this "verbal" you speak of?

610 Math
610 Writing
730 Critical Reading

Beetches.

What are these numbers you speak of? It doesn't make sense, they're not even prime!

Also omnipresent, yes? So since time is a dimension, there should be no problem whatsoever.

Precisely, he's got no excuse. He just keeps making up all these excuses like "Only my father knows the hour of my return" so I can't say much for his attitude.

[/threadjack]

I'll just try out an argument to prove something about the survival of information, though as I have not yet completed the argument, I'm unsure as to what I'll now attempt to prove. Here goes:

IF it will ever be possible to tell whether information has survived beyond an oscillation cycle or will able to survive beyond this or a later cycle, it is thereby implied that the oscillation exits, which means that other cycles have existed or will exist in the future. This in itself is a piece of information regarding another cycle, namely its existence, proving that information survives.

In other words, we can only find out whether or not information survives if it actually does.

If it doesn't, we'll never know.

I'm aware that the above argument might contain some fallacies, as I made it all up while writing it. In the chain consisting of inspiration -> logic -> language -> fingers, the ideas did not stay at Logic Station for very long. That is because I am not very patient. You must be, however, for if you were not, then you would not have read this far.

:D
That logically disproves itself depending on what definition of information we use.

the universe will be an endless stretch of cold, dead nothingness with a few unbound subatomic particles scattered all about.

Reminds me of my third marriage.

What do you think? What is to become of everything in the end? Is there an end? All opinions welcome, be they based on faith or physics or your own imagination. Please tell me what You think.

Multivac (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Question) will find a way to reverse entropy and then will say "Let there be light!"

What is this "verbal" you speak of?

610 Math
610 Writing
730 Critical Reading

Beetches.

780 Writing. BOOYAH!

It's not worth dwelling on simply based on the fact that 100000000000000000000000 years from now, the human race will most likley be extinct within the universe. And the next breed of intelligent species will learn from all the humans discovered and taught.

But, if we are still around, we managed to get an international space station within 5000 years of recorded human history, surley 100000000000000000000000 years from now we will have re-located to another planet or something along those lines.

Thats where I stand.

Meh, I'll be dead.

The universe will end when the Pope gets tired of it.

Seriously, did you see what he did to Limbo? He doesn't have any compunctions about consigning the souls of dead babies to oblivion, why should he have a problem taking this world with him?

:eek:

RUN CHILDREN! RUN! IT'S THE POPEMOBILE OF THE APOCALYPSE!

But, if we are still around, we managed to get an international space station within 5000 years of recorded human history, surley 100000000000000000000000 years from now we will have re-located to another planet or something along those lines..

It's even more optimistic if you realize we made the majority of our most significant technological advances in the past 100 years...and we went from a millenia-old agricultural base, to an industrial one, to a technology/information one in less than 200 years. 100 years is a single lifespan for a particularly fortunate person and nothing on a geological scale. And it's getting faster, which means that the next 100 will be even more significant and world changing than the past 100.

I'm not too concerned. As long as we don't intentionally screw ourselves over, we should be in the clear.

It's even more optimistic if you realize we made the majority of our most significant technological advances in the past 100 years...and we went from a millenia-old agricultural base, to an industrial one, to a technology/information one in less than 200 years. 100 years is a single lifespan for a particularly fortunate person and nothing on a geological scale. And it's getting faster, which means that the next 100 will be even more significant and world changing than the past 100.

I'm not too concerned. As long as we don't intentionally screw ourselves over, we should be in the clear.
You're too damned optimistic for your own good, you know that?

What I must wonder is why you went into finances instead of into science, since you seem to be so obsessed with it. Or are you like me: interested in the subject but not willing to do the work?

It's even more optimistic if you realize we made the majority of our most significant technological advances in the past 100 years...and we went from a millenia-old agricultural base, to an industrial one, to a technology/information one in less than 200 years. 100 years is a single lifespan for a particularly fortunate person and nothing on a geological scale. And it's getting faster, which means that the next 100 will be even more significant and world changing than the past 100.

I'm not too concerned. As long as we don't intentionally screw ourselves over, we should be in the clear.

In the grand scheme of things how much of a difference is 4900 years compared to 100000000000000000000000 years...thats what my point was, but I know where your coming from.

You're too damned optimistic for your own good, you know that?

Futurists tend to be optimistic. The only downside to looking ahead is that you don't see the problems all around you. ;)

What I must wonder is why you went into finances instead of into science, since you seem to be so obsessed with it. Or are you like me: interested in the subject but not willing to do the work?

Honestly, it's primarily because I'm mediocre at math. Also I'm good at looking at things on a macro scale, but when it comes down to the conceptual level, I don't do as well. That's also one of the reasons why I do well at economics, since it tends to be on a more "big-picture" scale and I excel at that kind of thinking.

I'm doing finance so that I can go in to something like venture capital and play a part in these fields; I might not be able to do the research, but I can provide the money for other people to start a company or a research venture. After all, scientists need money to do their work, and if I can provide it I can play a role in the advancement of science.

Even if the make the very bold assumption of linear technological development, the perspectives are truly beyond what one can hold in mind.

Imagine where technology is right now. Compare it to where it was a second ago. Now, compare the advancement during that one second to the advancement during an entire millennium. This corresponds to comparing the advancement during a millennium to the advancement during about 31.6 billion years, which is two to three times the current age of the universe.

10^27 years corresponds to performing the above thought experiment a few times more upon the previous result.

I dare say we know nothing about how little we know about what may be in the long run.

I dare say we know nothing about how little we know about what may be in the long run.

Brilliant.

Even if the make the very bold assumption of linear technological development, the perspectives are truly beyond what one can hold in mind.

Barring extinction, it is inconceivable. Even a single century of, say, computer processing power continuing on its present trend will produce computers over one quadrillion times faster and more powerful than they currently are. It is highly likely many people alive today will see a significant portion or even all of that change, and the question arises as to how we will adapt to it.

That is simply mind blowing...it's just not something we are capable of comprehending because it is so big and happening so quickly.

Barring extinction, it is inconceivable. Even a single century of, say, computer processing power continuing on its present trend will produce computers over one quadrillion times faster and more powerful than they currently are. It is highly likely many people alive today will see a significant portion or even all of that change, and the question arises as to how we will adapt to it.

That is simply mind blowing...it's just not something we are capable of comprehending because it is so big and happening so quickly.

Aside from physical limitations on technological advancement. After all, computer processing power advancement won't be infinite. There is a ceiling somewhere we'll hit. Especially when you take into account the things affected by higher processing power, for instance cooling and the like.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness_causes_collapse

The next step in evolution... it's beginning already... think if we could consciously control the power to change and bend reality with our minds. It might be limited to quantum effects right now, but it will grow... because evolution predicts us aaaaalllllll to become little psionic pseudo-gods à la Akira. And there is one thing I know about this whole big rip thing. I don't want to be smeared across the lightyears for all infinity. I just don't want to! I don't WANT TO! I! DON'T! WAN! AAAAARRRGGGGHHHHH! (This is the point where a flash of bluish light emanates from my body, rapidly expanding, negating entropy in a radius of several miles. An elderly scientist measures my Aura from a safe distance and finally amazedly concludes: "This is the creation of the universe!". I'm going to make a RP from this. Yes, that's what I'm going to do. Me becoming Akira)...

But really, I think the minds capability to alter reality in such a fundamental way, even if it is not fully understood, is a good sign for our future.

Uh, no, that's complete bullshit. Evolution is not a means to an end, and every single speculation on the evolution of man has been utter rubbish because they all presume that evolution is about making creatures better, when it is simply about adapting to the current situation. At most we'll adapt to the current climate in some fashion and perhaps become somewhat more intelligent. We will NOT start developing crazy psionic powers or anything else X-Menish.

Actually, it looks like the evidence is swinging towards an oscillating universe rather than a heat death. Just a cycle of contraction and expansion, over and over again with no apparent end we know of. Interestingly enough, it appears that some information may survive each of the oscillations...what that may imply, if it proves to be the case, may be far more profound than anything we have discovered so far.
Umm... unless there's been something new in the past year or so, the oscillating universe has been all but ruled out.

The universe is either going to expand forever, or expand forever at an accerlating rate most likely.

Aside from physical limitations on technological advancement. After all, computer processing power advancement won't be infinite. There is a ceiling somewhere we'll hit. Especially when you take into account the things affected by higher processing power, for instance cooling and the like.

I think based on current physical laws we will hit a hard limit in roughly 600 years. Of course, that's still a mind-blowing amount of growth. Thankfully, quantum computing offers a way around it in terms of raw processing power but we won't be able to shrink transistors or other logic devices any smaller than that final limit barring a major rewrite of known laws.

It's possible, but not likely.

I think based on current physical laws we will hit a hard limit in roughly 600 years. Of course, that's still a mind-blowing amount of growth. Thankfully, quantum computing offers a way around it in terms of raw processing power but we won't be able to shrink transistors or other logic devices any smaller than that final limit barring a major rewrite of known laws.

It's possible, but not likely.

That sounds like a fairly arbitrary date, and overly optimistic. We're going to start running into fresh water problems in 20 years. Given the amount of resources we're going to have to dump into fixing that problem, both in terms of developing technologies to improve distillation from ocean water and in resources going into that distillation, our advancement in other avenues will probably slow down considerably.

That sounds like a fairly arbitrary date, and overly optimistic. We're going to start running into fresh water problems in 20 years. Given the amount of resources we're going to have to dump into fixing that problem, both in terms of developing technologies to improve distillation from ocean water and in resources going into that distillation, our advancement in other avenues will probably slow down considerably.

600 years is the universal limit...literally as much as we'll be able to compact them according to natural laws. However, conventional lithography technologies will hit their limit in around 15-20 years, ceteris paribus. We'll need a replacement for those processes in order to keep the law moving forward; it's possible, and several processes are in the works, so we will be able to surpass it for the forseeable future.

In regard to water management, I don't think it will slow it just like the push for alternative energy hasn't slowed progress in other fields but has actually accelerated developments in photovoltaics, nanotechnology, biotechnology and polysilicon processing. Water management, especially the kind we'll need, is very advanced and requires a lot of different systems in order to properly distribute, test, clean, and produce it from multiple sources.

It could actually stimulate a lot of different sectors; it would shift their focus, but it would not slow them.

1. the big crunch. basically the big bang but in reverse
2. the big rip. basically the universe becomes so big it can no support its existence and rips

Uh, no, that's complete bullshit. Evolution is not a means to an end, and every single speculation on the evolution of man has been utter rubbish because they all presume that evolution is about making creatures better, when it is simply about adapting to the current situation. At most we'll adapt to the current climate in some fashion and perhaps become somewhat more intelligent. We will NOT start developing crazy psionic powers or anything else X-Menish.

My post wasn't supposed to be taken that serious.

Well, but the evidence of consciousness somehow influencing reality is there already (and this is not due to evolution, but apparently due to the nature of consciousness itself). And, should the conditions in the universe require life to adapt to rather odd situations, I think it will transform into rather odd forms. So, when organic matter (or matter at all) can't exist anymore, who says that there will not be other forms of consciousness to arise that do not need a physical body at all? Perhaps self-organizing quantum systems or stuff like that.
Besides, I assume there is an evolutionary process besides the purely genetic/biological one, but that's just my very own personal speculation...

In the grand scheme of things how much of a difference is 4900 years compared to 100000000000000000000000 years...thats what my point was, but I know where your coming from.

Yes. but think how powerless mankind really is up until now. We might be able to split atoms and fly to the moon, but in essence, we didn't even settle on other planets yet. Think about that 15 billion years have already past since the big bang - and life, though it did come a long way, is still essentially meaningless to the universe. 10^27 might just be the time we (or whatever we are to become) might need to learn all the stuff we can't do yet. Only a second has past since mankind came to existence, compared to eternity, but our powers are also only those of a second, compared to those that we do not have.

:cool:

Don't worry: the sun will blow up in another 5x10^9 years, incinerating the inner planets. Actually it will start heating up and scorching them to sterility in just 10^9. Life on Earth (or elsewhere) is just a temporary and accidental attribute. And thus totally pointless. I'm quite happy with that. It's a comforting thought. Not that I don't care about life, mine or in general. In fact I feel very lucky that I will have been part of it.

On a wider timescale: yes, the universe is probably heading for a cold-death, but there are other theories such as the Big Crunch (now obsolescent), the Big Rip et al. The ultimate effect is totally different, but the result somehow stays the same, doesn't it?

At most we'll adapt to the current climate in some fashion and perhaps become somewhat more intelligent.

This may interest you:
http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/070326_evolution.htm

i think humanity's obsession with ultimateness is a big problem

for itself

whatever this universe's ultimate fate, or even this planet and this solar system, all of us, our whole species, let alone our individual selves, well be so long gone, so long before anything like that happens, that its just crazy to concern ourselves with.

what we're doing to are surrounding natural environment is another matter entierly however. that we can do something about. are doing something about. mostly all the wrong things at present. and we could kill ourselves collectively as a species by continuing to do so.

so that's something we have choices about. that makes good sense to pay attention to and care about.

and the suffering of individuals and how to avoid causing it. all those sorts of things. that's what we need to be paying attention to.

the rest of the universe, beyond our solar system, that we haven't figgured out how to get out there and mess up yet, it's taking care of itself and getting along just fine.

=^^=
.../\...

@OP

I like how you used the word 'cold' to describe a world in which all the energy in the universe has been converted into thermal energy...

Also I wouldn't discount the possibility of high enough concentrations of thermal energy turning back into matter.

http://www.exitmundi.nl/exitmundi.htm

Have fun.

Best website EVER.

Is it creepy that I re-read the entire site every week or so?

Oh, and my choice for the end of the universe is the big crumble.
A few of the universal constants change, and the whole shebang falls apart

@OP

I like how you used the word 'cold' to describe a world in which all the energy in the universe has been converted into thermal energy...

Also I wouldn't discount the possibility of high enough concentrations of thermal energy turning back into matter.

I read something a while back that there is a possibility that the heat-death had already happened, and we are in a 'relatively isolated' patch of the universe where random chance has locally & temporarily reversed entropy (kind of like that there is a possibility that, in a matchbox of air, at one point most of the air could be in just one half of the box instead of equally spread out).

Of course with the stuff I read this could also have been the plot for a sci-fi type book or something :confused:

I read something a while back that there is a possibility that the heat-death had already happened, and we are in a 'relatively isolated' patch of the universe where random chance has locally & temporarily reversed entropy (kind of like that there is a possibility that, in a matchbox of air, at one point most of the air could be in just one half of the box instead of equally spread out).

Of course with the stuff I read this could also have been the plot for a sci-fi type book or something :confused:Sounds quite the beginning of a sci-fi book. ;)

My understanding is that there must be reactions which are reverse of fusion and fission. Where the net reaction is endothermic instead of exothermic. Like if you bombarded a helium-3 ion in a high energy state with a neutron then it might fragment into hydrogen, deuterium and a neutron.

Fusing together any elements to make another element with a larger atomic number than iron actually requires energy. So there must be a process whereby all these elements with a larger atomic number than Iron. This process, I think, happens during a super nova, ie. a high energy state.

What it all really depends upon is whether the universe will continue to expand for ever.

Sounds quite the beginning of a sci-fi book. ;)

My understanding is that there must be reactions which are reverse of fusion and fission. Where the net reaction is endothermic instead of exothermic. Like if you bombarded a helium-3 ion in a high energy state with a neutron then it might fragment into hydrogen, deuterium and a neutron.

Fusing together any elements to make another element with a larger atomic number than iron actually requires energy. So there must be a process whereby all these elements with a larger atomic number than Iron. This process, I think, happens during a super nova, ie. a high energy state.

What it all really depends upon is whether the universe will continue to expand for ever.

Fusion and fission the opposites of each other (Fission = breakdown of nuclei) - you are right about super-novae being responsible for at least the majority of Iron+ elements being about (so far nothing short of one, in nature, can make elements heavier than iron)

When I went through physics there were just the three end states of the universe, nice to know a fourth has been added (got taught about the big crunch, sustained expansion/heat death, stabilisation/finite size of expansion. This is first I've heard of the Big Rip - need to read up more on that now)

The really sad thing about the heat-death which some people have just assumed without explaining, and others don't seem to have got, is that protons are actually radioactive, and will decay out in the end - this is, of course, only a bad thing if you are made up from atoms :cool:

Asimov has written a few books on/close to "the end" (one already mentioned, but also Eternity anyone?), and so has Steven Baxter (Time/Space/Origin/Phase Space series) with some pretty interesting ideas in them all
And yes - I am sure the idea from my previous post wasn't the plot for any of these :)

Yes. but think how powerless mankind really is up until now. We might be able to split atoms and fly to the moon, but in essence, we didn't even settle on other planets yet. Think about that 15 billion years have already past since the big bang - and life, though it did come a long way, is still essentially meaningless to the universe. 10^27 might just be the time we (or whatever we are to become) might need to learn all the stuff we can't do yet. Only a second has past since mankind came to existence, compared to eternity, but our powers are also only those of a second, compared to those that we do not have.

But the thing is, we split atoms and flew to the moon in less than 100 years, a mere fraction of our century and that in turn occurred only 100 years after we developed an industrial base and modern economics. The sheer pace of technological advancement, even if it were to occur at a next-to-impossible linear rate, would propel us very far forward in a very short amount of time. 100 years from now, we'll be mind-bogglingly advanced with far bigger changes in our society than occurred in the past 100...we can't even imagine the sheer amount of advancement and change yet.

This may interest you:
http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/070326_evolution.htm

That's pretty cool. As long as it propels us into the right direction (perhaps GenEn can provide a little guidance for the process), I can't await what's to come next.

Besides that, to come back to infinite expansion, I have recently read (I can't remember where it was), that it was possible through some chain reaction in the quantum fabric to eliminate the Higgs-Boson field in the entire universe, thus halting expansion and initating a Big Crunch by what is initially a merely localized effect. However, it is unknown how to cause this effect that sets the chain reaction in motion.


The really sad thing about the heat-death which some people have just assumed without explaining, and others don't seem to have got, is that protons are actually radioactive, and will decay out in the end - this is, of course, only a bad thing if you are made up from atoms

Yes, but life mustn't necessarily be based on baryonic matter, right? And without the need for baryonic matter in order to sustain life, the proton is meaningless to the final end. Perhaps humanity as we know it is doomed, but others might continue their existance. Essentially, I'd even say that life (or rather consciousness) is one of few processes in our universe that's work without baryonic matter and conventional macro-scale laws of physics. Whatdaya say?

I'll cross that bridge when I get to...oh wait :D

Yes, but life mustn't necessarily be based on baryonic matter, right? And without the need for baryonic matter in order to sustain life, the proton is meaningless to the final end. Perhaps humanity as we know it is doomed, but others might continue their existance. Essentially, I'd even say that life (or rather consciousness) is one of few processes in our universe that's work without baryonic matter and conventional macro-scale laws of physics. Whatdaya say?

I did try to leave that open by just saying made of atoms rather than matter (as I started to write) ;). As for consciousness working without baryonic matter, I thought that currently it was assumed that it is at least supported by a matter-based structure. I wouldn't be surprised if was possible to separate the two by the time proton decay happens, but got no idea as to how we could recognise any means of non-matter supported consciousness.
That last paragraph looks far too cluttered :confused:

He already did. He died, tragically. There is a whole story about it.

lol, pwned

I wouldn't be surprised if was possible to separate the two by the time proton decay happens, but got no idea as to how we could recognise any means of non-matter supported consciousness.


Seperation of consciousness from matter might become possible one day, but what I was thinking, was that, since nobody today understands quite how even to define "life" (some scientists consider crystals to be non-carbon based lifeforms - the export entropy in order to maintain their existance, they grow, they replicate...), not to speak of how consciousness comes to pass, there is a possibility that even as we speak there exists sentient "life" somewhere in this universe that is simply without physical presence from the beginning on. But propably our mind might not be able to grasp the concept of "mind without matter". Its completely out of anything we could imagine.

Whatdayasay? = What-do-you-say? :cool:

Recently, in school, we learned about entropy, and that one day, all energy in the universe will have turned into thermal energy, which holds no free nergy, thus it becomes impossible for any system or structure to sustain itself. This means in something like 1*10^27 years (which is a deadly long time, imagine you didn't shave for so long), the universe will be an endless stretch of cold, dead nothingness with a few unbound subatomic particles scattered all about.


There is also the Closed Universe option: if there is enough mass in the universe (the dark matter could be its source), the Universe will stop expanding, and begin collapsing into itself under the effect of gravitation, thus basically becoming an universal black hole. This is known as the Big Crunch, as opposed to the Big Bang.

Outside the scientifical curiosity, anyway, I don't care how the Universe is going to end, because:
1.I plan to die within the next 120 years.
2.Humankind cannot do anything about that.

Ergo, dum vivimus, vivamus.

eliminate the Higgs-Boson field in the entire universe, thus halting expansion and initating a Big Crunch

If matter loses mass that may indeed stop the expansion through loss of inertia, but how will it initiate the Crunch? I don't get that ...

If you take the refrence frame that everything you observe and know about the Universe dictates its existance, then the Universe will end in about 44 years, and it will go out like someone flipped a lightswitch. At least it will for me.

If matter loses mass that may indeed stop the expansion through loss of inertia, but how will it initiate the Crunch? I don't get that ...

I've been wondering about that too because it is assumed that it is rather gravity that would halt expansion and cause the crunch to happen. If there's no mass, there's no gravity, and without gravity, expansion should, by all means of logic, continue into infinity. But if the scienticst come up with having found out its the other way round, they'll have my trsut with that for now.

If you take the refrence frame that everything you observe and know about the Universe dictates its existance, then the Universe will end in about 44 years, and it will go out like someone flipped a lightswitch. At least it will for me.

Hmmm... yeah, that's hard to argue against. I don't know wether you know this yourself, but with that statement you've addessed an issue philosophers are quite fuzzy about for a long time already.

If there's no mass, there's no gravity, and without gravity, expansion should, by all means of logic, continue into infinity.

Not so sure: what would loss of mass do to inertia?

On the other hand I guess we're on the wrong track here. We're actually not considering objects moving in space, we're talking about space itself expanding and taking objects with it.
Will have to think it over some more. The math is usually beyond me ...

Let's maybe leave it at this:
www.phenix.bnl.gov/WWW/lists/phenix-news-l/msg01552.html

If there's no mass, there's no gravity

I haven't yet understood why there is this equivalence between inertial mass and gravitational "charge". Really, it is the thing that puzzles me the most.

Mass (in special relativity) is the norm of the energy-momentum tetravector, while mass in gravitation plays the same role of the electrical charge in Coulomb's law.

Meh.

One of the earlier posts mentioned proton decay...

If I remeber correctly, wikipedia mentioned proton decay as a consequence of a classical GUT, and is not accepted as a classical GUT has not been formulated and tested yet... Not sure though...

I haven't yet understood why there is this equivalence between inertial mass and gravitational "charge". Really, it is the thing that puzzles me the most.

Mass (in special relativity) is the norm of the energy-momentum tetravector, while mass in gravitation plays the same role of the electrical charge in Coulomb's law.

Meh.

It puzzles me too. It also puzzles scientists. There is no apparent reason why an object without gravity should also be devoid of inertia. Considering how gravity is among the most poorly understood phenomena however, it would be my guess that the answer to that should be found within theories that we are not even close to putting forward yet.

2.Humankind cannot do anything about that.

Ergo, dum vivimus, vivamus.


Theres the possibility that we might obtain the technology (And with that amount of time, we might possibly be Galaxy wide...) to cross into another universe.

Since we won't be there, how does this matter?

Recently, I was reading Hawking's "The Theory Of Everything", and he mentions that John Wheeler proved that it's feasible with today's thermonuclear weapon technology to build a large enough hydrogen bomb to get the necessary compression to produce a small black hole.

The hole would then consume our planet in short order.

The ultimate blackmail device.

Use your physics for making money, or ruling the world, instead of thinking about a time when you won't be there.

Since we won't be there, how does this matter?

Recently, I was reading Hawking's "The Theory Of Everything", and he mentions that John Wheeler proved that it's feasible with today's thermonuclear weapon technology to build a large enough hydrogen bomb to get the necessary compression to produce a small black hole.

The hole would then consume our planet in short order.

The ultimate blackmail device.

Use your physics for making money, or ruling the world, instead of thinking about a time when you won't be there.

Aye, but with all that h-bombs, there would remain no need for a black hole to frighten my enemies into the highest treetops, since all it would gobble up would be a mass of irradiated, dead dust. So the creation of a black hole is more a way to proove how far we've come, but useless as a weapon (as of yet). In the distant future, nuclear explosions will possibly be shrugged off by planetary defense systems with ease, so we will be using h-bombs solely for the purpose of creating black holes, which cannot be defended against at that time, but as of now, this tech isn't really useful as a weapon system.

BTW:


Theres the possibility that we might obtain the technology (And with that amount of time, we might possibly be Galaxy wide...) to cross into another universe.


The Singularity looms! And its quite right with me. Did I mention AKIRA is my favourite movie, for that matter :cool:

theres more to life than making money. Personally I think contemplating on the universe and its course of events is a highly commendable and noble pursuit.