Scientist calculates the 'sad, lonely' end of the universe

Jul 17, 2020
2
1
15
Twice in the article you placed commas in confusing and incorrect positions in the numbers.
Once at "will explode in about 10 to the 1,1000th years "
Another at "which he expects will be in about 10^3,2000 years."

Those numbers are now ambiguous and meaningless. How could this same obvious error be made twice?
 
  • Like
Reactions: dfjchem721

rod

Oct 22, 2019
1,311
421
1,560
FYI, you can read the correct exponents on this white dwarf calculation here, https://forums.space.com/threads/cyclical-universe.32431/page-9#post-523217 The NASA ADS Abstract and arXiv report is at, The NASA ADS Abstract, 'Black Dwarf Supernova in the Far Future', https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.tmp.2391C/abstract, August 2020.

It is 10^1100 and 10^32000 years. The white dwarfs slowly evolve into black dwarfs as the universe expands and ages. This new, stellar evolution model follows the 2nd Law and contradicts cyclic universe beliefs or eternal inflating universe beliefs. The white dwarf population documented in astronomy today shows the universe is finite in age and had a distinct beginning that is winding down, not up. White dwarfs will age and become black dwarfs, some will blow up too in the end, the universe dies heat death :)
 
Mar 19, 2020
433
479
560
Well there certainly aren't many presumptions made in these calculations. :)

They say he went down "the rabbit hole", and in this case appears to be truly reporting from "Wonderland" rather than a reality-based position. It sure makes some people wonder about the "science" of such prognostications.

Going down the rabbit hole is usually defined as "To enter into a situation or begin a process or journey that is particularly strange, problematic, difficult, complex, or chaotic, especially one that becomes increasingly so as it develops or unfolds." (stolen from google search). Somehow this basic concept does not lend a great deal of credibility for some of us.

All joking aside now, for some the one thing that really lit up the screen was:

"Caplan explained in the statement. "I became a physicist for one reason. I wanted to think about the big questions — why is the universe here, and how will it end?"

For those of us who deny divine interventions, there is no "why" in science, there is only "how". They are vastly different questions in the scientific arena. Again, there is NO "why", at least for those grounded in fact-based observations and considerations.

Many would bet big money, and giving long odds, that more than a few will quibble with Caplan's "rabbit hole calculations."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe
Jan 4, 2020
202
71
160
Cool result - literary!

Earlier it was the super massive black holes that were believed to go last into the heat death of the current cosmology. Oh well, an exotic object and a couple of orders of magnitudes - potato, potatoe.

Well there certainly aren't many presumptions made in these calculations. :)

They say he went down "the rabbit hole", and in this case appears to be truly reporting from "Wonderland" rather than a reality-based position. It sure makes some people wonder about the "science" of such prognostications.

Going down the rabbit hole is usually defined as "To enter into a situation or begin a process or journey that is particularly strange, problematic, difficult, complex, or chaotic, especially one that becomes increasingly so as it develops or unfolds." (stolen from google search). Somehow this basic concept does not lend a great deal of credibility for some of us.

All joking aside now, for some the one thing that really lit up the screen was:

"Caplan explained in the statement. "I became a physicist for one reason. I wanted to think about the big questions — why is the universe here, and how will it end?"

For those of us who deny divine interventions, there is no "why" in science, there is only "how". They are vastly different questions in the scientific arena. Again, there is NO "why", at least for those grounded in fact-based observations and considerations.

Many would bet big money, and giving long odds, that more than a few will quibble with Caplan's "rabbit hole calculations."
If the first part of the post is the joke, let me just nitpick and note that the work is the reality-based position - a first order estimate from known physics. The non-joke question would be if it is testable. Who knows (maybe it's in the paper, but the topic is rather obscure).

More non-joke spurred from your comment, in general an empirical position cannot "deny" anything without being given reason to - anything can happen. But I think we now know religion is as rejected by observation as astrology is - large scale work or work results are impossible in a flat space universe (no net work went into it or any of its sufficiently large sub volumes - it's all spontaneous phase transitions). Added to earlier discoveries that religious magic rituals or thinking doesn't work ("intercessory prayer" doesn't work, LHC tells us there isn't enough exotic processes left for 'souls' or 'afterlife' in the biochemical machines that are us) and that's at least the same level of evidence that rejected astrology in the 80's (with blind studies and much older astronomical/light speed physics results). Arguably more since both cosmology and perturbation theory (Feynman diagrams) of the quantum vacuum are watertight, both capture net work or low energy 'something else' and wouldn't work out the way they do if such exist.
 
Jun 1, 2020
530
332
760
If quantum tunneling can produce iron over eons of time, why wouldn't the same process do the same to split iron apart, thus never allowing a black dwarf to explode?
 
Dec 3, 2019
3
2
15
Well there certainly aren't many presumptions made in these calculations. :)

They say he went down "the rabbit hole", and in this case appears to be truly reporting from "Wonderland" rather than a reality-based position. It sure makes some people wonder about the "science" of such prognostications.

Going down the rabbit hole is usually defined as "To enter into a situation or begin a process or journey that is particularly strange, problematic, difficult, complex, or chaotic, especially one that becomes increasingly so as it develops or unfolds." (stolen from google search). Somehow this basic concept does not lend a great deal of credibility for some of us.

All joking aside now, for some the one thing that really lit up the screen was:

"Caplan explained in the statement. "I became a physicist for one reason. I wanted to think about the big questions — why is the universe here, and how will it end?"

For those of us who deny divine interventions, there is no "why" in science, there is only "how". They are vastly different questions in the scientific arena. Again, there is NO "why", at least for those grounded in fact-based observations and considerations.

Many would bet big money, and giving long odds, that more than a few will quibble with Caplan's "rabbit hole calculations."
On what evidence do you deny divine, or otherwise unknown or unknowable intervention? After long investigation, the "how" may in fact turn out to be a "why". What the likelihood of that is we can't say, but we can't state with absolute certainty that there is NO "why".
 
  • Like
Reactions: Helio
Jun 1, 2020
530
332
760
The "how" is what science seeks. The "why" will always be subjective and outside the purview of science.

If we go back to the 17th century and beyond, both were combined, though science was in its pre-modern era. Purpose was seen in most scientific discoveries. Divine purpose and efficacy were seemingly apparent. It helped spur interest in science and in forming universities. Paley's Natural Theology (~ 1800) was extremely popular and beloved by Darwin.

The term used for purposeful science is teleology.

Today, however, philosophy and religion are often regarded as NOMA (non-overlapping magisteria, per Gould), though sometimes there are some overlaps.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rod
Mar 19, 2020
433
479
560
On what evidence do you deny divine, or otherwise unknown or unknowable intervention?
Some might use your question as the answer. It all boils down to the "unknowable" aspect, which has no meaning for many. This is all purely "philosophical" in nature and does not intrude on the realm of fact-based science.

Science discovers things and make them work without consideration of unknowable interventions, and related concepts. That does not mean that people who ask "why?" are wrong to do so, only that science has no answer for them.
 
Aug 14, 2020
85
24
35
If the premise is wrong then the structure built over it will be as a house that is built upon shifting sands.

The Universe (a.k.a. a multi-dimensional Multiverse) isn't even close to being on its way to a long sad lonely end. It is an infinite of mass for one thing, a still existing Big Crunch. A constant. That infinite of mass is a binary constant, at once infinitesimal in mass. A Big Hole, also constant of course (binary). That infinite of mass, that Big Crunch/Big Hole did not go away. It does not go away. It will not go away. The 'vacuum of space' does not and will not go into any long sad lonely end. Nor does the 'vacuum energy', the many, many, vacuum energies, including the matter, of the macro-verse. Nor do the many, many, vacuums of the micro-verse and quantum mechanics. That binary, that infinite of mass/that infinitesimal of mass, is fully present everywhere and at all times in the finite universes, the Universe's infinity of finite universes divided by horizons only into boundary-less finites. You might go to a long sad lonely end eventually. The planet Earth will eventually. Stars will come and go as vacuum energies do. Galaxies will come and go, as vacuum energies do. But universes and the Universe (a.k.a. a multi-dimensional Multiverse) won't, The base won't; the binary Big Crunch/Big Hole (the binary infinite of mass/infinitesimal of mass) won't. Infinity doesn't gain or lose anything. It may seem to in small, local, detail, in fine structure, but in the infinite/infinitesimal, and across the infinity of finites, it doesn't gain or lose a thing.
 

rod

Oct 22, 2019
1,311
421
1,560
FYI. In post #3, the NASA ADS Abstract has the arXiv paper. Here is an important statement in it. From the NASA ADS Abstract, arXiv paper "9 CONCLUSIONS Black dwarf supernova progenitors with masses between about 1.16 and 1.35 M⊙ are at near zero temperature which allows us to determine their internal structure with fair accuracy using only a relativistic Fermi gas. Furthermore we can calculate their lifetimes with simple analytical formulas for the pycnonuclear reaction rates at the surfaces of their iron cores. If proton decay does not occur then in the far future we expect approximately one percent of all stars today, about 10^21 stars, to collapse and explode in supernova beginning in approximately 10^1100 years and lasting no more than
about 10^32000 years. At such advanced time it is difficult to imagine any other astrophysical processes occurring, which may make black dwarf supernova the last transients to occur in our universe prior to
heat death..."

The white dwarfs on the H-R diagram are indeed evidence of a universe with distinct beginning and much younger age than stellar evolution showing the arrival of black dwarfs. The white dwarfs, and now the calculations for black dwarfs - support a universe that is not cyclical. It is moving towards heat death as this new paper shows. A distinct beginning of the universe and white dwarfs future is shown here. Difficult for the eternal universe folks to accept :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Helio
Jun 1, 2020
530
332
760
The white dwarfs on the H-R diagram are indeed evidence of a universe with distinct beginning and much younger age than stellar evolution showing the arrival of black dwarfs.
Yes, finding black dwarfs would be hard to explain if the universe is only 13.8 B yrs. old.

The white dwarfs, and now the calculations for black dwarfs - support a universe that is not cyclical.
Well, that would depend on the cyclical period. But how would anyone determine what that would be?

It is moving towards heat death as this new paper shows. A distinct beginning of the universe and white dwarfs future is shown here. Difficult for the eternal universe folks to accept :)
The problem I have is if a theory (cyclical) can't be falsified, then it's not science ; it seems to be metaphysics, instead. If only 1 prior cycle could be objectively found, without entropy problems, then an infinite universe would be more plausible, though not infinitely so. :)
 
Aug 14, 2020
85
24
35
FYI. In post #3, the NASA ADS Abstract has the arXiv paper. Here is an important statement in it. From the NASA ADS Abstract, arXiv paper "9 CONCLUSIONS Black dwarf supernova progenitors with masses between about 1.16 and 1.35 M⊙ are at near zero temperature which allows us to determine their internal structure with fair accuracy using only a relativistic Fermi gas. Furthermore we can calculate their lifetimes with simple analytical formulas for the pycnonuclear reaction rates at the surfaces of their iron cores. If proton decay does not occur then in the far future we expect approximately one percent of all stars today, about 10^21 stars, to collapse and explode in supernova beginning in approximately 10^1100 years and lasting no more than
about 10^32000 years. At such advanced time it is difficult to imagine any other astrophysical processes occurring, which may make black dwarf supernova the last transients to occur in our universe prior to
heat death..."

The white dwarfs on the H-R diagram are indeed evidence of a universe with distinct beginning and much younger age than stellar evolution showing the arrival of black dwarfs. The white dwarfs, and now the calculations for black dwarfs - support a universe that is not cyclical. It is moving towards heat death as this new paper shows. A distinct beginning of the universe and white dwarfs future is shown here. Difficult for the eternal universe folks to accept :)
This universe of ours is at minimum two universes, the relative time, observable, universe, and the real time, unobservable, universe. If I could become a universe traveler aboard a universe traveling ship i might travel to a Milky Way similar looking galaxy recently discovered at about 12 billion light years from here and now. I would be space traveling [the] real time, unobservable, universe while time traveling [a] relative time, observable, universe. The galaxy observed at 12 billion light years away from Earth, is observed to be minus 12 billion years there and then from Earth here and now. There is a space there and now at plus 12 billion years from that 12 billion years there and then. In traveling I would close the distance between the two, and the difference. My arrival would be at [-12b years + 12b years = 0]. But the horizon wouldn't change. Upon arrival at 12 billion x 6 trillion miles from where I started I would still observe the horizon to be from 12b to 13.8b light years from me. And I would observe huge numbers of galaxies and stars between me and that horizon, younger and ever younger the closer to the horizon they would be from me. In my rearview mirror while traveling, I would have observed the Milky Way disappearing toward the distant horizon that would be keeping its precise distance from me like one island in the ocean receding toward the horizon behind me, while another advanced from the horizon before me, the horizon itself never gaining nor losing distance from me in whatever direction observed. The Milky Way disappearing toward the horizon in the distance disappears into its own past, observed relative time universe not unobservable real time universe. Actual time passing is measured the same on three real time clocks, mine, my destination's, and my departure point's (herein theoretically holding with the universal clock time. No matter how fast the trip, it will not be faster than the speed of light (0 = 0 = 0, plus travel time passed). The universe I observe up and out from me in every direction whatsoever (including down and in to the Planck horizon inside every atom making me up) is no older than 12.6b to 13.8b years old, constant!
 
Aug 14, 2020
85
24
35
My postings above borrowed from a lot of theory pieces I've read over many years. Pieces of a puzzle I put together my way that I found to fit in dimensions as I see them to fit.

Would you actually think that an infinite mass, a Big Crunch dimension and cosmology of gravity, would have a single or absolutist center of gravity? A singularity you could point to? It would have no such thing! Every infinitesimal point of such an infinity, such an infinity of points, would be its center of gravity. Each and every point would be englobed by points. Each and every center of gravity englobed by gravity like a doughnut center being englobed by doughnut. This infinity's pull of gravity would not be to the inside, it would be to the outside of anywhere and everywhere. It would be nowhere inside specifically to be found. Nowhere locally to be found.

To borrow a couple of the dimensions from chaos theory, infinite is the smoother of two overlaying territories, finite the courser grained. You zoom up and out of the courser grained into the smoother, zooming up and out of the Hawking universe into the Einstein universe. But I tell you, and so does chaos theory, it doesn't stop there. You zoom up and out of the smoother and find yet another overlay become grainy once more. You arrive in a courser grained territory once more. I think you might get some idea of where this goes, to infinity. To infinity, and yet ultimately all the monotony of repetitive layering finally reduces to just a basic two. Finite, just as it should be, is always the match of infinite. Infinity of finites, the pairing of the two. Even the merger of the two.

It's still not quite good enough.

You've maybe heard the old saw, "You can't see the forest for the trees." And vice-versa, "You can't see the trees for the forest." herein each tree is a center of gravity and there is an infinity of trees. Herein the forest of all trees, an entity unto itself, a dimension unto itself, is infinite in its gravity. Each tree is a constituent hub of the forest. The forest the surrounding, encompassing ring, or rim, or umbrella, of all trees. The tree hub in its potential would close the forest to a zero point grain (or contract it an infinitesimal point grain) if it could. The forest in its infinity would pull apart and tear open each and every tree to infinity (seemingly ... but not actually ... expanding the Universe to infinity, accelerating it to infinity, smoothing it all out) if it could. Luckily this Universe, this multitude of universes, this Multiverse, can never eat or demolish, or end, itself. The trees in all their [grainy] multitude can do nothing about the forest. The forest in all its massive smoothness can do nothing about the trees. There is cancellation of fulfillment to potential . Each continues to exist to continue to cancel! Neither ceases to exist! The interactive activity continues. There is an ENERGY there BETWEEN the two that are in fact a binary one.
 
Last edited:

rod

Oct 22, 2019
1,311
421
1,560
Helio in post #12 asked, "Well, that would depend on the cyclical period. But how would anyone determine what that would be?"

The BB event and stellar evolution of white dwarfs in this model place time constraints on arguing for an eternal or cyclical universe belief system. So we have 10^1100 years - 13.8E+9 years = delta t for calculating the cyclical universe claims before black dwarfs in stellar evolution appear based upon entropy and the 2nd Law.

The white dwarf stellar evolution calculations of 10^1100 years and 10^32000 years that evolve into black dwarfs and black dwarf supernovae, place time constraints on cyclic universe claims or eternal universe claims. The universe will die heat death, white dwarf stellar evolution demonstrates this as white dwarfs slowly evolve to the black dwarf stage. The 2nd Law/entropy wins out, the universe as it ages is slowly dying, not evolving into new universes.

For more on this report see, 'Black dwarf supernova': Physicist calculates when the last supernova ever will happen', https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/08/200812113354.htm, "As white dwarfs cool down over the next few trillion years, they'll grow dimmer, eventually freeze solid, and become 'black dwarf' stars that no longer shine." Like white dwarfs today, they'll be made mostly of light elements like carbon and oxygen and will be the size of the Earth but contain about as much mass as the sun, their insides squeezed to densities millions of times greater than anything on Earth. But just because they're cold doesn't mean nuclear reactions stop. "

In summary, white dwarf to black dwarf stellar evolution shows our universe had a distinct beginning, has a finite life span (white dwarfs reach the black dwarf stage of evolution), and will come to an end based upon heat death. The 2nd Law/entropy wins. As the universe ages, it is winding down, not up and the *evolution* of white dwarfs demonstrates this. The problem confronting the eternal universe advocates is stellar evolution of white dwarfs ending in black dwarfs and black dwarf supernovae, heat death of the expanding universe observed today. It is game over for recreating new universes according to white dwarf stellar evolution, slowly evolving into black dwarfs :)
 
Feb 3, 2020
18
7
15
Questions:

1. Is the entire "the universe is expanding" theory based on redshift of the observable matter? If not, what other observations lead us to this conclusion?

2. Is it possible the redshift we observe is due to some process or element beyond literal movement?
 
Aug 14, 2020
85
24
35
In all my posts I have contested both a one time only, in all of a probability of eternity, beginning to the Universe and at once a one time only 'sad and lonely' end to the Universe. It is a product of inline one-dimensional thinking. At the very most, two-dimensional, though I can't really see how it even reaches to that.

The Big Bang [is] ever a work, divided into an infinity of finite works, in progress. I've alluded to it without naming it so far, if memory serves.

We've been brainwashed to see the Big Bang as the super nova explosion of all super nova explosions, a finite doing away with the infinity of the Big Crunch (we are led to imagine) and at once a really big light show. I don't see it that way. I see it as the void filler, always coming on in each and every universe of an infinity of universes. I see it as a pre-history event (thus dark to us) aborning at all times in the voids of time and space of each and every universe. Order oncoming at all times as a constant, even as disorder as a constant is eternally in progress. The only way order can even exist in the first place to be disordered. A fountain of youth at work at all times, even as 'sad and lonely' ending is at work at all times. Can we see it? Yes, just never here, never now, never relative, never locally. That is not the horizon that life -- in any of the infinity of horizon universes -- lives in, or can live in. Not the dimension, or dimensions, that life can exist in.

You could say that life is confined, is doomed, to a narrow belt of each universe of that infinity of universes. That's okay, just as long as it [is] an infinity of narrow belts ... and we can connect the dots.
 
  • Like
Reactions: David-J-Franks
Nov 20, 2019
229
107
260
FYI. In post #3, the NASA ADS Abstract has the arXiv paper. Here is an important statement in it. From the NASA ADS Abstract, arXiv paper "9 CONCLUSIONS Black dwarf supernova progenitors with masses between about 1.16 and 1.35 M⊙ are at near zero temperature which allows us to determine their internal structure with fair accuracy using only a relativistic Fermi gas. Furthermore we can calculate their lifetimes with simple analytical formulas for the pycnonuclear reaction rates at the surfaces of their iron cores. If proton decay does not occur then in the far future we expect approximately one percent of all stars today, about 10^21 stars, to collapse and explode in supernova beginning in approximately 10^1100 years and lasting no more than
about 10^32000 years. At such advanced time it is difficult to imagine any other astrophysical processes occurring, which may make black dwarf supernova the last transients to occur in our universe prior to
heat death..."

The white dwarfs on the H-R diagram are indeed evidence of a universe with distinct beginning and much younger age than stellar evolution showing the arrival of black dwarfs. The white dwarfs, and now the calculations for black dwarfs - support a universe that is not cyclical. It is moving towards heat death as this new paper shows. A distinct beginning of the universe and white dwarfs future is shown here. Difficult for the eternal universe folks to accept :)
Hi rod,
A distinct beginning of the universe
What do you mean by begining, are you suggesting the contents of our Big bang came from nothing, or would you say there was something there before?
support a universe that is not cyclical.........Difficult for the eternal universe folks to accept
Something even more difficult to accept for people who believe the big bang was the beginning of everything. That is;

'Matter-energy can't be created or destroyed'

This means there has always been 'something' - even befoe the Big bang - and always will be 'something'.

This means for a complete picture you will need to explain what all the stuff that came out of the Big bang was doing before it went bang. It could have just been sitting there, in its compressed state, for an infinite time and then just 13.8 billion years ago decided it was time to go bang. Or, can I suggest it was the collapse of matter from a previous, or previous mixture of Big bangs?

The big bang was a natural phenomenon. It is part of and built into the laws of physics, it is the laws of physics which allowed it to happen. It's not conceivable to me that the laws of physics can allow a one-off phenomenon. So, if these laws allow it to happen once, then it can always happen, and always has happened:)
 

rod

Oct 22, 2019
1,311
421
1,560
David-J-Franks, I think my answer to your questions (post #18) is in my post #15, especially why the universe we see clearly had a distinct beginning and is not eternal or infinite in age or cyclical. The First law, matter-energy conservation is overcome by the 2nd Law, increasing entropy based upon the new model of white dwarf stellar evolution in this article. The First Law does not create anything, it is just a conservation law but not a law that organizes something new or creates something new which is what you are claiming the First Law does. The report on white dwarfs using stellar evolution to model black dwarfs follows the 2nd Law and increasing entropy. White dwarfs play a critical role in stellar evolution and H-R diagram plots, including white dwarfs documented in globular clusters. The population of globular clusters, like the white dwarf stars are all aging and dying, the First Law cannot recreate them or keep the universe from heat death in the remote future which is now supported by the new model of white dwarf stellar evolution ending in black dwarfs and heat death.
 
  • Like
Reactions: David-J-Franks
Nov 20, 2019
229
107
260
David-J-Franks, I think my answer to your questions (post #18) is in my post #15, especially why the universe we see clearly had a distinct beginning and is not eternal or infinite in age or cyclical. The First law, matter-energy conservation is overcome by the 2nd Law, increasing entropy based upon the new model of white dwarf stellar evolution in this article. The First Law does not create anything, it is just a conservation law but not a law that organizes something new or creates something new which is what you are claiming the First Law does. The report on white dwarfs using stellar evolution to model black dwarfs follows the 2nd Law and increasing entropy. White dwarfs play a critical role in stellar evolution and H-R diagram plots, including white dwarfs documented in globular clusters. The population of globular clusters, like the white dwarf stars are all aging and dying, the First Law cannot recreate them or keep the universe from heat death in the remote future which is now supported by the new model of white dwarf stellar evolution ending in black dwarfs and heat death.
rod, thanks for the reply, you said
The First Law does not create anything, it is just a conservation law but not a law that organizes something new or creates something new which is what you are claiming the First Law does.
I agree, the first law does not create anything, but the point of my post was to say that the first law does not allow a beginning of everything, I'm merely using it to say there has always been 'something'. It's then up to the laws of the 'something' to continuously rearrange and allow new formations to happen. Your support for the idea of a beginning still does not address the question I put to you -

"This means for a complete picture you will need to explain what all the stuff that came out of the Big bang was doing before it went bang".

For something to have a beginning, it must be a part of a greater whole or from something pre-existing, otherwise, it's just another something from nothing theory.

I was also hoping you would address the question I put to you in post 18 which was -

"What do you mean by beginning, are you suggesting the contents of our Big bang came from nothing, or would you say there was something there before?"

You said in post 15
In summary, white dwarf to black dwarf stellar evolution shows our universe had a distinct beginning,
I don't understand why you claim this new proposition proves the universe had a beginning. There is already ample evidence to show the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate to base your claim on. I don't see why this new proposition adds any more weight to that.
 

rod

Oct 22, 2019
1,311
421
1,560
David-J-Franks, I think you need to show what physical laws created the universe from a previous, existing state *that avoided* the First Law (creates nothing, just conserves) and the 2nd Law (entropy) that winds everything down, eventually. In astronomy, all that we see today in stars, star clusters, galaxies follow the path of entropy in the 2nd Law. The new white dwarf stellar evolution model showing end state as black dwarfs demonstrates this and the 2nd Law does not create new universes in heat death and the First Law does not create new universes. We see the calculations now for white dwarfs support eventual heat death for the universe. The same is true for evaporating black holes, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation

Black hole evaporation times are shorter than white dwarf to black dwarf stellar evolution times. Both physics paths show black holes dying and white dwarfs too, thus the 2nd Law (entropy) wins out, heat death and nothing more to be created. So David-J-Franks, what physical law(s) allow you to show the previous condition before the postulated BB event, was not in a state of heat death, thus no BB possible or creation of the universe astronomy sees today?
 
  • Like
Reactions: David-J-Franks
Aug 14, 2020
85
24
35
I've responded in comment to this article when it was republished days later elsewhere. I went about it somewhat differently than I've done here (building a somewhat different picture) and I definitely wanted to add it here if I could.

"A trillion years multiplied by a hundred times. That is a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, ... trillion (100 times altogether).

But this is, apparently, a believer in the existence of only one sad and lonely [little] universe. No others (none to [possibly] collide, energize, maybe even merge, like worlds, stars, and even galaxies, are known to do). And nothing coming before in time. Nothing to come after in time. A truly mediocre finite single universe apparently, one so delicate, so careless of its physics (so idiotic in its being you might say) at that. I see the article revealing far more about it's author, as so many of these kind of nakedly singular "arrow of time" articles do, than it reveals about the Universe writ large (the 'Cosmic All' as E. E. 'Doc' Smith once called it; the 'Multiverse' as many are coming to think of it).

The possibility of bubble-like universes existing that quite possibly could collide, unleash energies, maybe even merge, is not as I see, or realize, the bigger picture to be. But the many universes picture has been pictured that way quite a few times in illustrations I've seen."

(I then added a P.S. the next morning):

"P. S. -- Well, now that I went down this road, might as well go a little further. In this [micro-verse-like] macro-macro-verse enough energy buildup (Vacuum? Dark?) internally might cause division of one of these bubble-like universes into two or more new to occur eventually. Even collisions of these particles, err, cells, err, bubble universes, might cause some fissions to occur rather than fusions."
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: rod
Nov 20, 2019
229
107
260
In summary, white dwarf to black dwarf stellar evolution shows our universe had a distinct beginning, has a finite life span (white dwarfs reach the black dwarf stage of evolution), and will come to an end based upon heat death. The 2nd Law/entropy wins. As the universe ages, it is winding down, not up and the *evolution* of white dwarfs demonstrates this. The problem confronting the eternal universe advocates is stellar evolution of white dwarfs ending in black dwarfs and black dwarf supernovae, heat death of the expanding universe observed today. It is game over for recreating new universes according to white dwarf stellar evolution, slowly evolving into black dwarfs
I was in the middle of writing this as you posted your last post, so I'll go ahead and post this anyway, and then come back and specifically answer the questions you've raised in said post.

My previous posts dealt with beginnings, so now on to the end.

The observation of the accelerating expansion of the universe is explained with dark energy. We don't know what dark energy is or its full properties. Your support for the end of the universe is dependent on something we know nothing about or even if it exists at all. Don't you think that something as important as the end needs something a bit more concrete than an unknown 'dark energy'?

Anyway, what do you mean by 'the universe'?

Catastrophe pointed out that the dictionary definition of 'universe' is "everything that there is". You, this web sites articles and most top scientists seem to keep referring to the big bang and the universe as one and the same thing. for example, statements like - "The universe started with the big bang". It is a huge assumption that the contents of the big bang are 'everything that is' ie the universe. There's absolutely no evidence to support this, I find it completely unscientific.

So until proven otherwise I think its equally good (no, better) to assume the universe is infinite and contains infinite 'stuff'. Meaning the contents of the Big bang is not 'everything that is' ie the universe. With this in mind, the contents of the big bang are expanding into the stuff of rest of 'The Infinite', as I like to call it. When it hits this 'stuff', the 2nd law will not be able to expand the contents of our big bang anymore. So no heat death!

Everything that exists, exists in a space. The big bang may have created space (space itself being a 'something' eg quantum foam etc), but at the same time, it must have existed in a space, even if just a void or geometric space. So, if you want to stick with the idea that the contents of the big bang is also the universe, you are assuming that the rest of space that the big bang existed in is infinite and void, in order to allow indefinite expansion and heat death. A bit absurd in my opinion.

Me from last post - "For something to have a beginning, it must be a part of a greater whole or from something pre-existing, otherwise, it's just another something from nothing theory." Again with this proposition the contents of our big bang are expanding into the greater whole, and so can't expand forever - no heat death.

Altogether, with unknown dark energy, and the possibility that the contents of the big bang are expanding into a 'greater whole' or 'The Infinite', don't you think it's a bit unsafe to predict the end, (heat death) of 'everything that there is' just yet? :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe and rod

rod

Oct 22, 2019
1,311
421
1,560
FYI, post #23 and #24 do not show how *whatever* is postulated to exist prior to the BB event, was not already in a state of heat death because of the First Law and 2nd Law. These posts ignore heat death, the First Law and 2nd Law/entropy and argue in a circle with no empirical tests to verify such origin claims, e.g. bubbles creating new universes where the bubbles are not in a state of heat death and then can create something new.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY