A Snapshot of the Universe 3 Trillion Years From Now

ultracool wrote with a link to a Science Daily article that requires that you think long term. Really long term. Case Western Reserve University physicists are theorizing that trillions of years from now the universe will become 'static'. Essentially, the information that we use to gauge our Galaxy's position in the universe will have moved beyond the 'visible horizon. "What remains will be 'an island universe' made from the Milky Way and its nearby galactic Local Group neighbors in an overwhelmingly dark void ... The researchers followed up that discussion with one tracking early elements like helium and deuterium produced in the Big Bang. They predict systems that allow us to detect primordial deuterium will be dispersed throughout the universe to become undetectable, while helium in concentrations of approximately 25 percent at the Big Bang will become indiscernible as stars will produce far more helium in the course of their lives to cloud the origins of the early universe."

reality is absurd

[crow5599]

For a better look at points along the future timeline of the universe, see here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/origins/universe.html [pbs.org]

Re:reality is an inconvient absurdity

[Nymz]

The debate over what the universe will be like in 3 trillion years is over, please censor the scientific method, because this is a moral issue now, and I will lead you to the promised land. Sincerly, your Father-Figure-Prophet-Messiah

The universe: a device for turning H into He

[TrueJim]

The universe: a device for turning hydrogen into helium

Re:

[SpaceLifeForm]

Space makes H.

If the Universe keeps filling the void by
creating new Hydrogen, then things will
change but not look that much different.

Why are we worrying about trillion years?

[iamacat]

Science/philosophy went through stages of flat Earth, Earth at the center of the universe, everything made up of four elements... Granted, we progressed a bit in what we can measure and observe these days, but current structure and workings of the whole universe now, much less a trillion years later is not one of those things. We are most probably spinning fairy tales on what happens inside black holes, on other planets, in the center of our own planet or even with temperature changes on the surface. It mig

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't we focus on getting more facts first? Better exploration of nearby planets and deep layers of the earth should be within our reach now.

You sound like the people who say "why two desktop environments? we need to work together and focus on beating Microsoft". That doesn't make sense because the open source world is not a hive mind, and developers and projects are not interchangeable. People work on the projects that interest them, and they don't necessarily care about "beating Microsoft". If you t

Re:

[Jugalator]

I'm not sure what happens on planets and the deep layers of Earth matter for the expansion of the universe, or to generalize, what geology have to do with cosmology, so I'm not sure what a better understanding of those things would help the understanding of this. It would be far less than the scale of how a golf ball affect the rotation of Earth. And as for this research, they're simply extrapolating from what's been seen to happen in the past. And when you think about it, there's not many end stations for

Mod parent THE FUCK DOWN

[Bowling Moses]

A score -1 Ignorant would be entirely appropriate. All the parent post is saying is that oooh, nasty little scientists got it wrong 500 years ago, therefore they're equally full of crap about things I don't understand. We got a pretty fucking good idea about the inner workings of our planet. We got a damn good understanding of meteorology and climatology, and we're progressing nicely in cosmology despite ignorance peddlers like you. Your post isn't even logically consistent--poor dumbass scientists got

Re:

[sohare]

While the parent was a bit harsh, he really does characterize a certain sect of woo wooers out there who have never studied anything more than high school physics but somehow think that every working scientist is wrong and missing some crucial insight that they, of all people, are privy to.

Re:

[umbra_dweller]

Yet somehow all that mucking about with four elements, geocentric models and alchemy led to what we now regard as science. Humans are constantly trying to expand their horizons, and it is a given that they will makes some mistakes along the way. You call this "an exercise in math and science fiction", but I think it is a necessary exercise. It's not like there is some magic point when we will have gathered "enough" information to make proper judgements, and if we don't try to apply our knowledge every st

Re:

[iamacat]

Sure, even science fiction authors provided inspiration for scientists and engineers, as well as students considering to join these fields. But - I don't want this work to be considered science until it's underlying assumptions are more solid. At least I would expect a disclaimer like "If we plug in these numbers in our equations, we get some 0s, infinities and other wild results. These equations are derived from observations from a single vantage point and could be wrong at extreme conditions contemplated

Re:

[Yahweh Doesn't Exist]

>Science/philosophy went through stages of flat Earth

here's a quick clue how (modern) science works: it's not about right or wrong but the consistency of models with observations, and about making the minimum number of approximations to adequately understand a system.

science does not say the flat earth model is wrong, it just qualifies the situations in which it is a good approximation, for example if the characteristic distances involved in the process you are interested in are small in comparison with

Bacause that is how science progresses.

[jotaeleemeese]

Let the scientists play. They will bring us joys and worries.

Many very interesting and useful advancements have come from what at the time looked like idle thinking.

In our materialistic society nowadays many people forget that vacinnation, molecular biology and space travel started with people looking at bugs or at the stars for the sheer pleasure of doing so.

Re:

[iamacat]

One thing for sure - now, as then, the society/governments do not seem to be interested in vaccination and space travel. A shame really, given that AIDS vaccine or a manned trip to Mars are within reach of our current technology, especially we accept a slight risk to a few informed volunteers inherent in such endeavors.

What about now?

[Derling Whirvish]

Doesn't this mean that the universe may be much older than we can currently detect in that there may be a lot more of it out there beyond our current event horizon which drops off at about 13.7 billion years? Maybe it is 20 or 30 billion years old but we can only detect it to the 13.7 billion year line.

Re:

[Ohreally_factor]

Soap bubbles. The froth of ocean waves.

Still, I was hoping I could use this information to pick some stocks. I'm still not sure whether to short or go long on the universe.

Re:What about now?

[tigerhawkvok]

Actually, no; we know this isn't the case because we can still observe the CMB, or Cosmic Microwave Background. When the universe was young it was very hot, and so normal matter was ionized and therefore opaque to EM radiation (ie, light). This cools off in a characteristic way until the temperature becomes cool enough that electrons re-bind to protons and the universe becomes (largely) transparent to light. Since we can see this edge, and we can furthermore measure the expansion rate of the universe (via white dwarfs, stellar clusters, etc), we in fact have pretty solid bounds on the age of the universe. This whole island universe thing (ironically what people first thought of galaxies) amounts to an excercise in seeing when expansion beats out light. Recessional speeds due to expansion can exceed someone's idea of "light speed" because space expands and essentially drags the coordinate system with it. The article basically says that the closest bodies will be outside our light cone in ~3e12 years, and the expanding coordinate system will red-shift it to nothingness to boot. Its nice to have it quantified, but its something that we've known for a long time. Hm, apparently the comments can't parse <sup> .

Re:

[nih]

God put the Cosmic Microwave Background there to test our faith!

Re:What about now?

[(negative video)]

Doesn't this mean that the universe may be much older than we can currently detect in that there may be a lot more of it out there beyond our current event horizon which drops off at about 13.7 billion years? Maybe it is 20 or 30 billion years old but we can only detect it to the 13.7 billion year line.

Since we can see this edge, and we can furthermore measure the expansion rate of the universe (via white dwarfs, stellar clusters, etc), we in fact have pretty solid bounds on the age of the universe.

No! The CMB only tells us what was happening after photons decoupled from charged particles. Even if we had efficient neutrino spectrometers, we would only be able to trace expansion back to neutrinos decoupling from the quark plasma. What happened before that would still be wide open.

And it might well have been exceedingly strange by modern standards. If you extrapolate expansion backwards from the quark plasma, general relativity says that the geometry of space becomes a foam. Does such a foam undergo sudden changes between many phases as it "cools"? Is the fantastic complexity of the space foam equivalent to a flatter space with a larger number of dimensions? Does the foam form meta-stable crystals that only rarely suffer a thermal dislocation, which expands to form a universe like ours at the site of the dislodged bubble, in the process cooling the surrounding foam so that subsequent universe births become less likely? Did the arrow of causality have more than two choices before our universe condensed?

We don't even have the math to analyze lightly-whipped space, let alone a full fledged foam with 256-element tensors that vary sharply on the Planck scale. Making pronouncements about how that state evolved is unwarranted. Even using words like "evolved" is unwarranted when time may have been all loopy.

Re:

[foniksonik]

Nice quasi-scientific rant!

I'm definitely going to use the term "lightly-whipped space" to refer to a problem that is just beyond our current capability ;-p

Re:

[khallow]

It is a beautiful term.

Re:

[Profane MuthaFucka]

The expansion of space is driven by some mysterious force known as the cosmic coefficient. It's weak. Really weak. You might have thought that gravity was weak, but it's the Hulk compared to this mysterious force.

As a result, space is expanding *between* the galaxies where gravity can't overcome this mysterious force. Within galaxies (and our local group), gravity is quite enough to overwhelm it. Thus our little corner of the universe will remain bound by gravity, but the space between the large clusters wi

Re:

[fyngyrz]

You might have thought that gravity was weak

No, I abandoned that line of thinking the first time I lost my balance on a ladder and gravity demonstrated its ability to accelerate me into a concrete floor about ten feet closer to the center of the planet. Well, after I woke up, that is.

Ok that's it.

[Ravear]

First idiot to mention a certain game with a protracted development schedule gets shot.

Re:

[edwardpickman]

That's just silly. The sun will go Nova long before then. Unless they plan to move development off planet, Duk...... You don't suppose they're building spaceships just in case do you? Gotta wonder what the first people to play it will look like if it takes a trillion years? In a few billion years we went from bacteria to humans. They may have to search the Universe for another race that looks like us or face redoing all the artwork. On the brightside the computers then should be able to run it.

Re:

[meringuoid]

First idiot to mention a certain game with a protracted development schedule gets shot.

Come off it. An intelligent entity evolved in my Spore game will have visited every star in the Elite 4 galaxy before that game ever gets completed.

Re:

[19thNervousBreakdown]

Don't forget some necessary programming techniques only available in TAoCP volume 4.

who cares?

[swell]

Jackson: Of course our sun will expire long before then, in about 3 billion years.
Mavis: [jumping from chair in panic] What's that you say?
Jackson: [repeats]
Mavis: [gradually relaxing] Oh, I thought you said 3 MILLION years, whew!

big crunch?

[bodrell]

Isn't the universe supposed to collapse sooner than that? If scientists are currently saying that the universe is 10-20 billion years old, why the hell would anyone assume the "Big Crunch" won't happen by then?

I'd be much more interesting if someone had a theory about what the universe looked like before the Big Bang, assuming that isn't a bunch of bullshit too.

Right now, Hindu creation mythology [wikipedia.org] is looking less silly than theoretical astrophysics. I'll be waiting for Kalki [wikipedia.org] to come destroy the universe

Re:

[red314159]

While a dense enough universe could collapse into a "Big Crunch", that is not the hypothesized ending of our universe. The density of our universe is not dominated by matter, but by energy, such that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. You're right that it's difficult to extrapolate to a time several orders of magnitude greater than the current age of the universe, as currently-unknown physics could end up dominating. (Someone observing the universe about 8 billion years ago would have been un

Re:

[bodrell]

While a dense enough universe could collapse into a "Big Crunch", that is not the hypothesized ending of our universe. The density of our universe is not dominated by matter, but by energy, such that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. You're right that it's difficult to extrapolate to a time several orders of magnitude greater than the current age of the universe, as currently-unknown physics could end up dominating. (Someone observing the universe about 8 billion years ago would have been unabl

Re:

[bodrell]

Energy has mass.

Yeah, no shit. That's why I said "Isn't it a bit incorrect to differentiate "matter" from "energy" when E=mc^2?" I could weigh myself in terms of electron volts instead of pounds or kilograms if I were so inclined (and yes, I know the difference between mass and weight, but nobody talks about "massing" themselves, and I'm not going be be weighing myself on the moon). Did you read my whole comment? Got anything constructive to add?

Re:

[bodrell]

I think photons get turned into mass when they collide with an atom. That's constructive right?

Anywho, from what I'm able to understand, dark energy(which is one theory about why the universe appears to be expanding) is quite likely simply a property of space(or a volume...), and thus will never be converted into mass.

Hmm. Interesting (and indeed constructive). I guess I need to learn more about dark energy. I believe dark matter is just non-radiative mass (i.e, cold stuff), but I really have no ide

Re:

[Anpheus]

You're forgetting that the two are interchangeable, and that energy does indeed exert a gravitational pull, the concepts of velocity, mass, and energy are all interlinked in the famous equation "E=mc^2" and it's expanded momentum-including cousin.

Re:big crunch?

[renoX]

>Isn't the universe supposed to collapse sooner than that?

1) No, that's what we used to think before, but now our current measurement indicates that the expansion of the universe is accelerating not slowing towards a big crunch.

2) We don't even have an interesting theory (as in a theory which gives testable new predictions) which is compatible with both general relativity and quantum theory, so asking for a theory for what happened before the big-bang is .. greedy to say the least.

3) What is silly is comparing myths with science.

Re:

[renoX]

>Today's science is tomorrow's myth.

No, myth 'inventors' never used experiments to validate their 'facts'.

Re:

[mshurpik]

Does a "universe" require a container? A containing universe?

Or is a universe an absolute fact, much like the God (Jesus) who created it?

Hmmmmmmmmmm....

Welcome to GUT my friend. Not as hard as they made it out to be, huh?

Hinduism

[bodrell]

Interesting.. Except that Hinduism doesnt really exist. It was given a name by discoverers, but is really much more diverse than any other religion, because it isnt really a religion either. You can be a Christian and a "Hindu". Hinduism accepts that because you are actively pursuing the truth, alas other religions cannot accept that so easily.

The creation myth comes from the Vedas, which is more scientific than myth and religion.

I certainly didn't mean to disparage Hinduism--er, the philosophy of the

check yer logic, Aristotle

[bodrell]

Your entire last paragraph is a logical fallacy, mostly an argument from personal incredulity. It's amazing how often people make this.

Ever taken a math class? Ever fit data to a mathematical model? Ever interpolated a value between two data points? The first thing they tell you is that extrapolation, unlike interpolation, is a dangerous and unreliable thing. The further you extrapolate from the existing data, the less likely it is that your extrapolation will be accurate. For a trivial example, take

Re:

[bodrell]

At this point, there seem to be more followers of the Big Rip than a Big Crunch, since the days when scientists detected indication of dark energy and that the universe is not just expanding, but accelerating.

Why did someone mod you down as troll? Am I missing something?

If it didn't happen by then...

[Statecraftsman]

All this stuff about microwaves and dark matter is cool but what I want to know is, will Linux have taken over the desktop?

Re:

[Glowing Fish]

No, but it will soon, right after the SCO case is finally settled.

Static Universe?

[ChemE]

I believe the summary is misleading. The researchers are not saying it will be a static universe, but that it will appear to be static.

The universe will keep expanding, but we will not be able to tell.

Re:Static Universe?

[Jeff DeMaagd]

I'm not sure it will matter. That is a hypothetical observation assuming that human-descendants, whatever they are, or other form of life will be around that long. Political turmoil with respect to life right how makes it hard to plan for a hundred years from now. Then there is the potential ecological turmoil if the scientists are right about greenhouse gases and humanity doesn't curtail its ecologically destructive habits. For the moment, there is no alternative habitat. Even if Mars is terraformed, which is difficult and unlikely, there's no way to move billions there, and there's not enough gravity and other factors to keep a stable atmosphere there anyway.

Re:

[SpinyNorman]

We'll all be toast anyway when our Sun goes supernova. Game o-vah.

3 trillion years? Ummm, no.

[Ralph Spoilsport]

As far as I know, the universe is expanding and the rate of expansion is increasing. IIRC, this will result in a situation with a shrinking event horizon, where the universe basically ceases to exist as space-time tears itself apart, and once the event horzon Big Rip.

So, from what I can gather, any speculation beyond 20 billion years is a waste of time.

RS

Re:3 trillion years? Ummm, no. (SECOND TRY)

[Ralph Spoilsport]

Ooops -I forgot about the html limitations here on slashdot. Sorry...

I repeat in greater detail...

As far as I know, the universe is expanding and the rate of expansion is increasing. IIRC, this will result in a situation with a shrinking event horizon, where the universe basically ceases to exist as space-time tears itself apart, and once the event horzon is less than the Planck Length [wikipedia.org], the universe itself ceases to exist. According to one study which, IIRC, has not been refuted, this will happen in some 20 billion years time. It's called the Big Rip. [wikipedia.org]

So, from what I can gather, any speculation beyond 20 billion years is a waste of time.

RS

Re:

[VON-MAN]

First 3 trillion.
And now you tell us 20 billion!
What's next? You're scaring me, man.

Re:

[DamnStupidElf]

You will probably die within ONE HUNDRED YEARS!

This just had to happen.

[VON-MAN]

So, in this expanding universe, 3.000.000.000.000 years from now, we will seem to be in a dark void. Sorry, that's no suprise to me.

Redshift Increasing?

[Karganeth]

That radiation will 'red shift" to longer and longer frequencies, eventually becoming undetectable within our galaxy. Krauss said, "We literally will have no way to detect this radiation."

How will the redshift increase? How far a wave travels doesn't affect how long its wavelength is. An increase in how redshifted galaxies are would require the galaxies to accelerate away from each other, but how could they? There is no force which allows them to accelerate. There is only gravity which slows them down.

Re:Redshift Increasing?

[vertigoCiel]

The radiation in question is the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, or CMBR. The CMBR is (analogously speaking) an "echo" of the Big Bang, in the form of electromagnetic radiation. As space expanded, the radiation's wavelength expanded with it, slowly lengthening from the Gamma and X-ray spectrums, through visible light, to the microwave spectrum (where it is now). As space continues to expand, so will the wavelength of the Cosmic Background Radiation.

As an interesting side note, since analog TV operates in the same part of the radio and microwave spectrum that the CMBR is observed, if you tune an analog TV to a blank channel (static), about one percent of that static is the CMBR. Turn the TV on, and watch the Big Bang!

Re:Redshift Increasing?

[ColaMan]

From what I understand of it:

Draw a sinewave on the surface a balloon. It has a set wavelength, right?
Now inflate the balloon to double it's previous size. The wavelength's longer now.

Same thing with the universe, except it's in 3D and in a trillion-year timeframe.

This makes me wonder...

[zukinux]

Just some point's I've thought of
Can we actually change something in the universe's future? I mean, if we were on earth or not, would it have any impact on the universe's future? or we're just an ant in at a very big forest?
If we can change something in the Macro level of the universe's acts, can we change the universe so it will fit our needs for a long term (billions of years)?

The Elegant Universe by Einstein

[singhparul]

This is a related video. From Google Video website

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4258041398 583592305 [google.com]

"Einstein's Dream," introduces string theory and shows how modern physics--being composed of two theories that are ferociously ... all incompatible--reached its schizophrenic impasse: one theory, known as general relativity, is fantastically successful in describing big things like stars and galaxies, and another, called quantum mechanics, is equally successful in describing small things

Try getting the weather correct first!

[mutende]

Case Western Reserve University physicists are theorizing that trillions of years from now the universe will become 'static'.

Give us a break. Scientists can hardly predict tomorrow's weather, and now you want us to believe that you can predict what the universe will look like trillions of years from now? C'mon...

What trillion?

[Teun]

Luckily there is a magnitude of difference between a US Trillion (10e12) and a European one (10e18)...

This being a mainly US site I assume the prediction is based on the easy one :)

Re:

[kclittle]

Well, actually, there are 6 (orders of) magnitude between the US and European 'trillion'...

Putting recent articles into perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

And now, a quick recap of four recent articles on Slashdot:

1. Movies: Celebrate 25 years of TRON!
   
2. Games: Players of EVE Online cry foul over preferential treatment by admins towards some players.
   
3. TV: Fans of the TV show "Jericho" mail over nine tons of nuts to CBS in a desperate attempt to keep the show on the air.
   
4. Science: In three billion years, the universe will just stop, everything you know and love will be no more, and here's a glimpse of the nothing it'll be.

Hooray perspective! Now let's go out there and have some fun!

Oh well...

[rizole]

...Just enough time for another bath then...

Right Now, Dammit!

[pipingguy]

At what point do we stop worrying and just accept that eventually everyone and everything that lives, dies?

At Slashdot, individuals that probably are new to having their own pubes are seen agonizing about whether the human existence will be around in 500 years. These usually are the types who demand this sort of thing:

1) stop global climate change right fucking now, or else (no matter what it takes) before we all die
2) let's get off this crappy rock and populate new planets before we all die

Both are absurd notions, but apparently crying wolf again and again works when manipulating hungry-for-hype mass media.

It *is* important to be forward-looking and responsible about the future but those who make environmentalism into a sort of religious crusade are not doing themselves nor their descendants (assuming they ever bother to have any, given the catastrophe now! mentality) any favours.

Re:

[smallpaul]

At what point do we stop worrying and just accept that eventually everyone and everything that lives, dies?

...

It *is* important to be forward-looking and responsible about the future...

Those two sentences cannot be reconciled. Either one is wrong or irrelevant or the other is. Personally, I think that its the first one that's wrong or irrelevant. It implies that we should only attach value to things that are eternal, which implies that neither your life nor mine has any value.

...but those who m

Re:

[pipingguy]

When one side of a discussion is yelling that the debate is over and appeals to emotion that's a good indicator of intent. When that same side refuses to listen to opposing views, shouts down "deniers" and smugly announces that "they have won" that's another indicator. "Global Warming"...oops, "Climate Change" is something that absolutely MUST be corrected RIGHT NOW! And if there's any dissent, well, we'll march in the streets as if it was some kind of civil rights issue and be indignant. Help, help, I'm be

Re:

[smallpaul]

You accuse environmentalists of being extreme, but from my position, here is how this thread has proceeded. It started with an interesting article about astrophysics that had nothing whatsoever to do with global climate change. Then you jump in with first, a chilling statement of apathy: "Everything ends so there is no need to worry about anything" and then a series of ad hominem attacks on environmentalists. So your logic is: "The UNIVERSE will end three trillion years ago and so people who worry about the

Re:

[pipingguy]

So, if you haven't got a clue when something is going to happen, and that thing could destroy mankind, it's only prudent to make it a priority.

You seem to be implying that anything, at anytime could wipe out the human race. You may be right. The absurdity is in being made to fear that which humans have no control over anyway.

I, like you, have no idea when my story ends (when me snuffeth) but there's no way in hell that I'll spend whatever time I have left hand-wringing, worried and encouraging my kids

Re:

[pipingguy]

42. I are older than that now, so I'll pre-emptively tell you to get off my lawn.

Actually, I consider myself to be a geek, just not a hard core computer one. I bought HHGG on DVD a few months ago and have to admit that I "didn't get" most of it. Maybe I should watch it again. Maybe that'd up my kewl street cred with the happenin' dudes and Fonzarelli-like hepcats here at Slash Dot Dot Org.

Paul

PS Nice user ID ya got there...it'd be a shame if someone were to come along and, like maybe, say, add a one

Horizon Chasers

[Doc Ruby]

There's no way for them to know what will be "undiscernable" to instruments and intelligence in 3 trillion years. Scientists a century and a half ago would have limited our universe to detection by optical telescopes. In just a decade from now, "dark matter detectors" (for example) could push that "horizon" beyond today's wildest imaginings. "Only" a trillion years from now, if we could possibly keep a consistent identity with whatever intelligence descends from us to then, "we" will likely have intelligence of even subtler, more distant phenomena.

Or we'll have returned to optical telescopes, or much more likely, won't exist to know anything at all. At which point the "discernable" universe will be more or less infinitessimal, or zero.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry, c and the Planck length say "no." In fact they say "not no, but HELL NO." Improving optical telescopes and using neat tricks to infer dark matter's presence from visible effects are both examples of doing something that's fairly hard, which is quite different from doing something that's impossible.

As the cosmic expansion accelerates, the light cone that defines our universe will shrink. Anything that was beyond it will no longer be part of our universe. You're not talking about seeing stuff that'

Re:

[Doc Ruby]

As far as you know. If you were an expert from 3Ty in the future, you'd be lying.

Re:

[Doc Ruby]

Anonymous conceited Coward, you're the one who looks foolish when you're certain that today's physical limits will absolutely constrain us for the next 3 trillion years. Like I said, only a hundred years ago, you'd have been certain that our universe was limited by whatever appeared in your optical telescope.

Re:

[Doc Ruby]

These scenarios are nonsensical because we don't understand them. The Universe, though, is not nonsensical. So it's most probable that we don't understand the universe.

Yet. What you have not come to grips with is the idea that this science that limits humans, limits the Universe, is wrong. Or, less flame-filled, incomplete. Which is what science is about: continuing to test drive the real Universe to update our roadmap, until they correspond precisely and accurately.

We've already got a few hundred years per

Re:

[Doc Ruby]

You're right about the interaction between "humans" and the universe, even fundamentally for both, in that timeframe.

But it it takes you 3Ty to get to bed, I'll have to see if I change enough in that time to bed with you. But I guess that's the way to bet, in such a timescale.

Mouse

[innot]

Well, at last the Mouse will finally become public domain at about that time.
I'm looking forward to get my free copy of Steamboat Willie..........

Historical sensory deprivation?

[Assassin bug]

cloud the origins of the early universe

Isn't the origin of the universe a little cloudy at the moment? TA indicates that there will be no information about how the universe expanded a long time from now. We don't know exactly how the universe is expanding now. If we did, we would know exactly how it formed, right? If this is an attempt to enhance funding for the study of the physics of space, they had better round off a couple zeros.

-1 troll

[peterpi]

3,000,000,002,007: the year of the linux desktop!

But how can the universe NOT collapse after time?

[schweini]

Just a little question i've been asking myself for ages: Why do current theories postulate the the universe will NOT contract back to a singularity after a (long) while? I thought i kind of understood the Big Bang/Big Crunch theory that used to popular, since gravity works at infinite distances, and should thus, ever so slowly, decelerate the expansion of the universe, or at least the fact that galaxies are traveling away from each other. AFAIU (understand), the constant acceleration of things in the univer

Re:But how can the universe NOT collapse after tim

[Ralph Spoilsport]

because from recent calculations, not only is the universe expanding, its rate of expansion is increasing.

I posted earlier about the Big Rip. From what I have been able to gather, it has not been refuted, and the evidence is still the same. The conclusion is that the universal expansion rate will go vertical in about 20 billion years. At that point the light cone will be smaller than the Planck distance - the universe then simply disappears. It will hit the universe everywhere at the same time. No big cru

You know what I say

[Master of Transhuman]

"Email me when this happens."

Re:uhh

[someone1234]

Contrary to the weather predictions, no one will complain about it.

Re:uhh

[CorSci81]

The term you're looking for is red giant. Red dwarfs are just regular stars even smaller than our own, and the name comes from their reddish spectra.

Re:uhh

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know. It might be that the Hubble constant and short term climate processes have nothing to do with each other and that trying to make some inference between them is just asinine.

Re:uhh

[hey!]

True. But we can predict that light bulb driven by a fixed battery will go dark within a predictable number of hours.

Re:

[zymano]

I agree.

Another theory is that the particles will decay.

What happens then?

Something cool. New universe?

Duhh

[Mark_MF-WN]

Duhh... because weather is chaotic, whereas the universe expands and cools linearly?

Go read your bible some more. Actual science is probably a little too scary for you.

Re:We Are Gods

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously.. can't we just leave the Big Answers to the Religions?

Because no one ever prayed up a better microchip. Pointless meditations on the true nature of atoms and light however.... Well, not so empty a pursuit as religion in retrospect. Your brand of incredulity is the wellspring of poverty.

Your post failed to be sarcastic

[jotaeleemeese]

It you are crap at being sarcastic don't blame others for not getting your brilliance.

Re:We Are Gods

[gaderael]

Not content with the fact we will die in less than ten billionths of the time interval discussed in this story, some of us still obsess with thinking we know the answers to the universe.

But why do they obsess? Everyone knows the answer to the universe is '42'.

Re:We Are Gods

[Ant P.]

Seriously.. can't we just leave the Big Answers to the Religions?
Because all religions that wield power abuse it.

Re:We Are Gods

[TheUglyAmerican]

Religions that have power are no longer religions - they are political ideologies. And politics are inherently corrupt and corrupting. Are atheist ideologies with power any less corrupt? Secular ideologies?

Religion is not the problem though other ideologies would like for you to believe it is as they attempt to increase their own power. Politics and the "will to power" are the human problem whether at the level of individuals or nations.

Re:

[renoX]

Except that there is a big difference between political ideologies based on religious belief ans secular ideologies: in the first case, the political power is based on a religious belief in the second case it is based usually on economical theories *not* on atheism!

As a trivial example, I've never heard someone say, there is no god so you should eat such or such food for example.

So those two types of ideologies are really different.

Re:

[red314159]

Why can't I turn this around and say, "Some of us still obsess with thinking we know the meaning of life . . . Can't we just leave the Big Answers to the Sciences?" It's a different approach to trying to understand the universe. You're free to think that scientists are arrogant, but they're no less arrogant than you are in your comment.

Re:We Are Gods

[Lachlan Hunt]

Not content with the fact we will die in less than ten billionths of the time interval discussed in this story, some of us still obsess with thinking we know the answers to the universe.

No-one knows for certain the answers to the universe. Like most things in science, it's a theory. There's obviously some evidence to support it now, but it's always possible that new evidence will improve our understanding of the issue. It doesn't matter that we will all die long before this ever occurs, it helps to satisfy our curiosity.

How will this affect your behaviour today? Will you re-think going to that club? Will you pick up an extra piece of litter? Will you go and buy up all the compressed helium you can find?

It's not about that at all. It's about learning and improving our understanding of the universe, not providing immediate benefits to our everyday lives.

Seriously.. can't we just leave the Big Answers to the Religions?

No, I'd rather get answers from people who actually study and look for the right answers, instead of leaving it up to blind faith.

Re:

[Paulrothrock]

Seriously.. can't we just leave the Big Answers to the Religions?

I think that's a great idea. I think that my religion, which says that you're all going to hell is right. Why? Because god privately revealed it to me, that's why? Proof? What more proof do you need? It's about FAITH. If you don't believe then it's not my problem, cause you're the one who's going to hell.

</sarcasm>

Seriously, this has got to be one of the most asinine statements I've ever read on Slashdot. We don't leave Big Answers to

Re:

[fonik]

Us Yanks are particularly susceptible to religious trolling because we are CONSTANTLY surrounded by people who actually think that way. No amount of sarcasm could possibly match up to the religious fanaticism that actually exists here.

Re:

[khallow]

Not content with the fact we will die in less than ten billionths of the time interval discussed in this story

I think that pretty much sums it up. It's something like the human race having a single still frame out of all the movies in the world only a few orders of magnitude worse.

Re:

[roystgnr]

Seriously.. can't we just leave the Big Answers to the Religions?

We could try that, but since all the religions I've seen got lots of the Little Answers wrong, I'm reluctant to trust any of them on the Big ones.

How will this affect your behaviour today?

Ironically, in this very Slashdot story which you think shouldn't affect anyone's life, we find offhand references to objective evidence which contradicted the creation stories of most of those major religions. I know my day-to-day life would be much better

Re:

[Fweeky]

"Not content with the fact we will die in less than ten billionths of the time interval discussed in this story"

Not set in stone. There are plenty of people who have good reason to believe that we may achieve technological singularity or something like it and maybe make ourselves or our descendents effectively immortal at some point in the future, maybe even within the century.

Either way they have better reasons to believe this than any religion has that their particular God/afterlife/creation story is any

There aren't no go areas for science

[jotaeleemeese]

We probe these questions because it is interesting and because we can.

And very often knowledge for knowledge sake generates science that is useful in ways we did not imagine.

What you are advocating is oscurantism of the worst kind and I, for one, will not surrender to such facile and defeatist attitude.

Re:

[Jugalator]

And your point is...?

If it's -- we're all gonna die anyway, well then that could be applied to any job. ;-)

Re:

[maxwell demon]

trillions of years from now the universe will become 'static'

Back on earth, we can't even predict, with any real certainty, whether next Friday will be rainy, sunny, cloudy, etc.

That's because the weather is incredibly more complex than the large-scale universe.