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
Comment on one bright second
IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works 1 day 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.
iloveDigit@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
Small_Quasar@lemmy.world 1 day 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 10 hours 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_cpp@feddit.it 9 hours ago
We can only time travel to the future or i am wrong?
Pencilnoob@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Yeah for all we know stars are black hole poop
MotoAsh@piefed.social 1 day ago
Nah, that’s the heavier elements.
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 23 hours 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 23 hours 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.
Afaithfulnihilist@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day 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.
faintwhenfree@lemmus.org 1 day 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 1 day ago
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.
SorryQuick@lemmy.ca 16 hours 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.
FishFace@piefed.social 1 day 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
tempest@lemmy.ca 1 day ago
So if all the existing matter came from the big Bang, is it possible to condense it all back into one place?
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 1 day ago
like how we thought black holes were ever-growing inescapable masses and then we learned about hawking radiation.