Comment

Afaithfulnihilist@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨22⁩ ⁨hours⁩ 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

Sort:hotnew top

faintwhenfree@lemmus.org ⁨20⁩ ⁨hours⁩ 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 ⁨19⁩ ⁨hours⁩ 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
  - SorryQuick@lemmy.ca ⁨10⁩ ⁨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.
    
    source
    ubergeek@lemmy.today ⁨3⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
    Matter and energy can be converted. So, its possible it was never created, it just always was.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
  - FishFace@piefed.social ⁨19⁩ ⁨hours⁩ 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
    ubergeek@lemmy.today ⁨18⁩ ⁨hours⁩ 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!
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
  - tempest@lemmy.ca ⁨19⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
    So if all the existing matter came from the big Bang, is it possible to condense it all back into one place?
    
    source
    pticrix@lemmy.ca ⁨19⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
    pretty sure that is the big crunch hypothesis
    
    source
    ubergeek@lemmy.today ⁨18⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
    Sure! Big crunch is a possibility! Crunch or heat death, all matters on how much matter is in the universe.
    
    source
    Oppopity@lemmygrad.ml ⁨19⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
    Google “big crunch hypothesis”
    
    source
- HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world ⁨18⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
  like how we thought black holes were ever-growing inescapable masses and then we learned about hawking radiation.
  
  source