Death of the Universe | Page 3 | INFJ Forum

Death of the Universe

kavalan said:
actually by Membrane theory there are 11. I know of 5, height, length, width, and time and a fifth that I integrate to...
Click to expand...

Classical physics assumes the 4 basic ones, and is what the theories of relativity are built on (which are the more significant theories for discussing cosmology as we are).

M-theory is crazy stuff though...just wish it was testable.
 
well if the mathematicians and physicists would quit bitching and get down to making mathematical history...
 
When you review the history of Astronomy you notice they have changed their understanding of the Universe quite many times already, with the input of better data. The theories are based on this data, which is far from complete and so the theories are temporary. In all truth, we could be part of a much bigger apparatus than the currently known universe, that could wipe us out completely at any moment. So there's no need to worry too much about the death of the universe anyway.

About the death of Earth, the plan is that we use the energy of the Solar system (at some point) to travel to other stars, use their energy to travel further, expand like a techno-virus around the Milky way, until our machines find good planet(s) for us to settle. Continue the expansion, take control of the energy at the center of the galaxy, use it to move to other galaxies. If we are able to follow this plan, we could outlive the Solar system, the Milky way, and possibly even reach the death of the Universe. But it's far more important that my meal doesn't burn in the oven now.
InTheWomblikeCocoon said:
so in the system to freeze time you have to stop light? or get rid of it? im wiry
Click to expand...
What do you want to achieve exactly? You can't stop time and be aware of it.
 
Last edited:
enfp can be shy said:
When you review the history of Astronomy you notice they have changed their understanding of the Universe quite many times already, with the input of better data. The theories are based on this data, which is far from complete and so the theories are temporary. In all truth, we could be part of a much bigger apparatus than the currently known universe, that could wipe us out completely at any moment. So there's no need to worry too much about the death of the universe anyway.

About the death of Earth, the plan is that we use the energy of the Solar system (at some point) to travel to other stars, use their energy to travel further, expand like a techno-virus around the Milky way, until our machines find good planet(s) for us to settle. Continue the expansion, take control of the energy at the center of the galaxy, use it to move to other galaxies. If we are able to follow this plan, we could outlive the Solar system, the Milky way, and possibly even reach the death of the Universe. But it's far more important that my meal doesn't burn in the oven now.
What do you want to achieve exactly? You can't stop time and be aware of it.
Click to expand...
just trying to understand how the machine works but since im a part of it i wont be able to apparently.
i also believe we are apart of some big thing, i just dont know what it is.
 
The average temprature of the universe will reach absolute zero some time in a very distant future

This is what is meant by death of the universe
 
Last edited:
this is scary..

i'm scared :(
 
Sithious said:
The average temprature of the universe will reach absolute zero some time in a very distant future

This is what is meant by death of the universe
Click to expand...

This is kind of lucid to me.
It is based on the second law of thermodynamics right, that the entropy tends to increase in an isolated system. But what I'm not understanding is that according to the first law; no energy can be created or destroyed only transformed. So how would this 'heat death'; energy loss of mechanical energy, be able to occur when it contradicts the first law?
 
[QUOTE=N
 
Last edited:
Pristinegirl said:
This is kind of lucid to me.
It is based on the second law of thermodynamics right, that the entropy tends to increase in an isolated system. But what I'm not understanding is that according to the first law; no energy can be created or destroyed only transformed. So how would this 'heat death'; energy loss of mechanical energy, be able to occur when it contradicts the first law?
Click to expand...
My understanding of it is, that energy wouldn't be destroyed, just spread out in such a vast amount of space that the average temperature of the universe would be absolute zero. Like Duty said before, one photon of energy for every millions of light years (but don't quote me on that, that's all going off of memory)
 
Pristinegirl said:
This is kind of lucid to me.
It is based on the second law of thermodynamics right, that the entropy tends to increase in an isolated system. But what I'm not understanding is that according to the first law; no energy can be created or destroyed only transformed. So how would this 'heat death'; energy loss of mechanical energy, be able to occur when it contradicts the first law?
Click to expand...

It's not the second law of thermo dynamics that is the reason behind this, it's the expansion of the universe.

The second law only suggest it will degrade in "quality" in a closed system
 
mf said:
My understanding of it is, that energy wouldn't be destroyed, just spread out in such a vast amount of space that the average temperature of the universe would be absolute zero. Like Duty said before, one photon of energy for every millions of light years (but don't quote me on that, that's all going off of memory)
Click to expand...

AHH wow now I understand. That made much more sense and made it much more clear. Thank you! ^^ Because I interpreted dissipation as energy that would be destroyed or disappear xD

Sithious said:
It's not the second law of thermo dynamics that is the reason behind this, it's the expansion of the universe.

The second law only suggest it will degrade in "quality" in a closed system
Click to expand...

An expansion of the universe implies 'cold death' actually, meaning that by this expansion, the universe cools down and eventually no life can be supported.

Whereas the second law says that available energy (e.g a hot source) moves to places of less energy (e.g. a colder source). Once this happens, no more work can be extracted from the universe. BUT this 'heat death' of the universe will only occur if the universe lasts for an infinite amount of time...

And that 'the amount of entropy in a system must always increase' is highly relevant actually just because the quality degrades! Any reaction that takes place will either result in the product becoming less ordered, or heat being given off. This means that when all the possible reactions have taken place, all that will be left is heat. Thus all available energy (e.g a hot source) moves to places of less energy (e.g. a colder source).
 
The only reason work is done is because of potential energy. If you poured slowly a cup of water down the drain, you cannot get it back up into the cup, so the cup being the universe and the water being energy, think of it that way.
Of course it does not happen that way, just empirically
 
Pristinegirl said:
AHH wow now I understand. That made much more sense and made it much more clear. Thank you! ^^ Because I interpreted dissipation as energy that would be destroyed or disappear xD



An expansion of the universe implies 'cold death' actually, meaning that by this expansion, the universe cools down and eventually no life can be supported.

Whereas the second law says that available energy (e.g a hot source) moves to places of less energy (e.g. a colder source). Once this happens, no more work can be extracted from the universe. BUT this 'heat death' of the universe will only occur if the universe lasts for an infinite amount of time...

And that 'the amount of entropy in a system must always increase' is highly relevant actually just because the quality degrades! Any reaction that takes place will either result in the product becoming less ordered, or heat being given off. This means that when all the possible reactions have taken place, all that will be left is heat. Thus all available energy (e.g a hot source) moves to places of less energy (e.g. a colder source).
Click to expand...

No the heat death has been calculated to happen after x billion of years, not infinity. If the universe hadn't expanded the heat death would not have occured as the average temperature wouldn't decreased even after an infinite amount of time. Following the law that energy cannot disappear.

But you're right, the energy get evenly dispersed as time goes on.
 
mf said:
I could be completely wrong about this, but going off of what I remember from astronomy/physic courses, I don't think this is entirely true.

True, gravity does affect everything but a galaxy millions of light years away doesn't have any noticeable affect on our galaxy. There is some gravitational pull (exponentially insignificant) but the expansion of the universe is a much stronger force. Gravity only affects objects to a certain distance. Much like a comet passing through the solar system can be on an unbound orbit. It passes through once and then never again. Gravity can change the direction of an object but after a certain distance/path of orbit, things will stop orbiting a gravitating object. The gravity of black holes acts no differently (from what I understand).

For example, if you placed a black hole with the same mass as our sun at the middle of the solar system, none of the obits of any of the planets/asteroids/comets/what ever, would change. The only things that would be sucked into the black hole are things that would have crashed into the sun to begin with.

Furthermore, it is extremely difficult to actually fall into a black hole. It's really hard to explain without a diagram but I'll try. First you have to understand that black holes can warp the dimension of space-time. If you picture a flat vector, that would be space time without a black hole. If you placed a black hole in the center of it, the vector would funnel down to a certain point (we don't know what that point is). So imagine a flat piece of paper with a funnel in the middle of it (I hope that's a good image to describe it). Objects can have all sorts of orbits around and into the black hole. Like if the black hole replaced our sun, objects orbiting far enough away wouldn't ever fall into the black hole. Then objects like comets with bound orbits, they would start to fall into the warp of space time (as in they'd start to fall into the funnel), but their orbits would pull them out of it. They'd then return the next time they cycle through. You can go deeper and deeper into a black hole and orbit out of it. The only way you'd fall in is if your orbit actually has it so you crash into the center of mass. Granted that could happen in an infinite number of places, but there's an even larger infinite number of places to be where your orbit actually never crashes into the black hole.

It all depends on the mass of the black hole on whether or not something will crash into it. There are countless black holes throughout the universe no where near massive enough to pull us in.

Granted, it's possible that we are orbiting a massive black hole and are on a path that leads us straight into the worm hole, but that's just a hypothesis. I guess my point is a number of discovered black holes pose absolutely no threat to us.
Click to expand...
I understand all that. I grant that the expansion of the universe could overcome the gravitational force of a black hole at great distances. However, for the sake of this idea, lets assume that universal expansion must eventually slow, stop, whatever (I'm not really going for a great deal of accuracy here, I'm just having fun). Given infinite time, a lot of things can happen, but almost all of it can be undone (a commit enters an orbit, and then it can be forced out. A particle can fall to a planet, but then the planet is struck by something else, and that particle is released from the gravity of that planet and is able to move away from it). However, the one thing that can NOT be undone is falling into a black hole. if particles are just bouncing around the universe, given enough time, they will eventually fall in. Once in, they can't get out, which would decrease the amount of free matter in the universe. Because matter exists (generally) in discrete amounts, everything must eventually fall in, and that would leave a universe of exclusively black holes. These black holes are immense distances apart, and the gravitational pull of one has very little effect on another, but there is SOME effect. Given enough time the black holes WILL pull each other closer (again ignoring universal expansion), and eventually fall into each other. Thats what I'm saying, given enough time (which would be an INSANE amount of time), everything will eventually be one black hole.
 
Sithious said:
No the heat death has been calculated to happen after x billion of years, not infinity. If the universe hadn't expanded the heat death would not have occured as the average temperature wouldn't decreased even after an infinite amount of time. Following the law that energy cannot disappear.

But you're right, the energy get evenly dispersed as time goes on.
Click to expand...

Hypothetically yes, but infinite as in undefined i.e. out of our comprehendible range, but there couldn't possibly be a calculated number of years ? :S
 
Last edited:
Pristinegirl said:
Hypothetically yes, but there couldn't possibly be a calculated number of years ? :S
Click to expand...

Within a certain margin of error yes, it's not like they can calculate the exact year with only a error margin of one year.

The error margin is probably billion of years, as the expantion of the universe is accelerating
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back