Comment on one bright second

IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

• Afaithfulnihilist@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ 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 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.

  source

  • faintwhenfree@lemmus.org ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ 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.

    source

    • ubergeek@lemmy.today ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ 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.

      source

      • FishFace@piefed.social ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ 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

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • SorryQuick@lemmy.ca ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ 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.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • tempest@lemmy.ca ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

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

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

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

      source
• gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ 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?

  source

  • ameancow@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    You should look up Penrose’s work in conformal cyclic cosmology.

    The short version is this: as the rarified universe becomes massless particles flying in all directions as space expands, it is basically the exact same conditions as the big bang. IE, when the universe fizzles out, from a different reference frame it’s still an infinite field of energy expanding out faster and faster.

    Just cross out the “distance” part of interactions between particles, without humans or anything with mass really to observe or interact with anything, the relationships between photons are all that matters, and from that perspective it will be the same as the big-bang state. All that’s important to look at is the relationships between these particles, the angles between them and probability of them interacting with each other.

    source
  • Kornblumenratte@feddit.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    IIRC, the current theory is that stars do not move apart, but that space itself expands, which generates the impression that they move apart.

    source
• iloveDigit@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ 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

  source

  • Small_Quasar@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ 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?

    source

    • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ 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.

      source

      • Axolotl_cpp@feddit.it ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        We can only time travel to the future or i am wrong?

        source

        • -> View More Comments
• Pencilnoob@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  Yeah for all we know stars are black hole poop

  source

  • MotoAsh@piefed.social ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    Nah, that’s the heavier elements.

    source

    • HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

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

      source

      • MotoAsh@piefed.social ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ 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.

        source

        • -> View More Comments