fossilesqueone bright second
theunknownmuncherBlack holes aren’t “dark”…
Brave Little Hitachi WandThese ones will be quite dim
Yeah, I suppose after a billion billion billion or so years, it probably would be
The light will eventually tire out and turn into radio waves or smth, I’m not a physicist
To al elder God that sees higher bands of the electromagnetic spectrum it would see be a very bright place!
Any self respecting elder god would be playing billiards with the black holes. Fire up the new big bang, ye tatterdemalion layabouts!
Infernal_pizzaIs that because of the accretion disk?
And Hawking radiation. Hawking radiation is pretty “dark” for solar-mass scale black holes and up, but it can become relatively very intense for smaller holes.
For the holes we observe astronomically, the things we can see are the accretion disks and the orbits of stars around the black hole.
But that happens because of matter falling into them, right? When they’ve already swallowed everything, there’s not going to be accretion disks.
BjörnYeah, though eventually they should all evaporate one after another with a last huge tiny energy burst due to hawking radiation. But that will take a looooooooong ass time. And we still don’t know (might never know) if hawking radiation is real.
turdcollector69Black holes ain’t black because they didn’t vote for Biden
/s
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.
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.
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.
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.
So if all the existing matter came from the big Bang, is it possible to condense it all back into one place?
pticrix
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
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!
New matter being created with extremely low probability fits perfectly with our observations.
I do also want to point out that stuff like “The conservation of energy” law, in other words, that energy cannot be created or destroyed, does not hold for our universe with our current models. An expanding universe violates the time-translation symmetry
This is our current models. This is what our current physics says. And we know it’s incomplete.
When it comes to scientific predictions, you always, always, need the caveat, “under our current model of”.
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.
Matter and energy can be converted. So, its possible it was never created, it just always was.
That’s something I’ll never be able to understand. Something having no beginning. Just like I’ll never be able to understand a moment before the big bang, or at the moment of the singularity, where time did could not exist. If there’s no time, how can anything, like the big bang, happen? Unfortunately the singularity is something we know nothing about whatsoever, and probably will never know.
MinnesotaGoddamlike how we thought black holes were ever-growing inescapable masses and then we learned about hawking radiation.
PencilnoobYeah for all we know stars are black hole poop
wait, i thought the heavier elements were star poop, and black holes poop either electrons or positrons i can’t remember.
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.
Gravity and time come from every black hole. Neither of those are “things” in the sense that they aren’t matter. So don’t think I’m saying that you are any kind of wrong. Perhaps “thing” might be to vague to be technically accurate, though.
Everyone here seems oblique in in a vision of nothing in perspective, though. Come on, where do you think a big bang came from?
There’s a cap limit to the size of a black hole because it will pop. And “The” is rather an inappropriate reference to a big bang. You might say “our” but infinity doesn’t mean hat you think it means. Not due to any “limit” but due to math through adjacent dimensions you’re only just start to deduce the “obvious” nature of and think to look at. “How” is a whole other Giggle Maestro.
If you need to understand how many dimensions there are…then you will never stop looking. Infinity is way more than we can but get a notion of.
iloveDigitWe 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
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?
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.
AxolotlCurrently yes, but there’s nothing inherent in there that’s says there’s no way for us to move backwards
gandalf_der_12teI 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?
IIRC, the current theory is that stars do not move apart, but that space itself expands, which generates the impression that they move apart.
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.
SmuuthbraneWell then I’m just going to enjoy the absolute fuck out of Hawking radiation and Mr pouty pants can sulk for 10^elebenty eons.
Also see Dyson’s Eternal Intelligence:
en.wikipedia.org/…/Dyson's_eternal_intelligence
Basically, if you assume it’s possible to upload our intelligence to a computer and run it, then you can keep the energy going to run it for a very, very long time. Well past the heat death of the rest of the universe. It depends on running things in an on and off state to conserve energy for trillions of years. Subjectively, the people in there wouldn’t notice that and would simply see their active lifespans go for trillions of years. It’s not clear what the limit would actually be.
It’s something like Zeno’s Paradox. You cut things in half each cycle, but never quite get to zero.
I see someone else is a Kurzgesagt fan https://youtu.be/VMm-U2pHrXE
We Found a Loophole to Survive the End of the Universe
I like to watch them when I need a good existential crisis
I know him and have even read all his books
jballsI cannot express in words just how much I do not want my consciousness to persist, trapped, for trillions of years of darkness. That would be unimaginable hell.
with only a finite initial store of energy, only a finite number of thoughts can ever be processed. This “thermal death” of the universe prevents the infinite hibernation and computation trick from working, thus rendering Dyson’s eternal intelligence scenario impossible in a universe with a positive cosmological constant.
My disappointment is immeasurable, and my day is ruined.
Eternity would get boring, a few trillion years would give you plenty of time to not miss out on anything life has to offer