6 ms·

Wikipedia's 'Timeline of the Far Future' is a great article on the posibilities of our universe's fate [0]. Of note are the entries near the end of the list. Y

Wikipedia's 'Timeline of the Far Future' is a great article on the posibilities of our universe's fate [0]. Of note are the entries near the end of the list. Year 10^(10^(50)) : Estimated time for a Boltzmann brain to appear in the vacuum via a spontaneous entropy decrease [1] Year 10^(10^(120)) : High estimate for the time for the universe to reach its final energy state, even in the presence of a false vacuum. Year 10^(10^(10^(56))) : Around this vast timeframe, quantum tunnelling in any isolated patch of the vacuum could generate, via inflation, new Big Bangs giving birth to new universes. Because the total number of ways in which all the subatomic particles in the observable universe can be combined is 10^(10^(115)) a number which, when multiplied by 10^(10^(10^(56))), disappears into the rounding error, this is also the time required for a quantum-tunnelled and quantum fluctuation-generated Big Bang to produce a new universe identical to our own, assuming that every new universe contained at least the same number of subatomic particles and obeyed laws of physics within the range predicted by string theory. Suffice to say, our understanding of physics and the universe is still in an infant state when it comes to predictions of the universe's future. Much more funding is needed :P [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_far_future https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_far_future [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain

irrational 7y ago
This kind of discussion always reminds me of the Asimov story "The Last Question" https://www.multivax.com/last_question.html https://www.multivax.com/last_question.html
- Balgair 7y ago
  Similar stories: http://devernay.free.fr/paradoxlost/html/the_end.html http://devernay.free.fr/paradoxlost/html/the_end.html https://urbigenous.net/library/nine_billion_names_of_god.html https://urbigenous.net/library/nine_billion_names_of_god.htm... http://www.eastoftheweb.com/short-stories/UBooks/TheyMade.shtml http://www.eastoftheweb.com/short-stories/UBooks/TheyMade.sh...
  - benji-york 7y ago
    Another one of a similar theme: you may have seen: http://galactanet.com/oneoff/theegg_mod.html http://galactanet.com/oneoff/theegg_mod.html
- psalminen 7y ago
  Thanks. This was an amazing read.
- jdironman 7y ago
  That was a great read. Asimov was always so far ahead of his time.
- om3n 7y ago
  An excellently illustrated version of "The Last Question": https://imgur.com/gallery/9KWrH https://imgur.com/gallery/9KWrH
  - Sendotsh 7y ago
    I’ve never seen the animated version. That is incredibly well done. The way it takes scrolling into account is brilliant.
  - dr_dshiv 7y ago
    Brilliant! Thank you
- baxtr 7y ago
  Reading this, I am again reminded that technological progress is sometimes way slower than people think. Think about how the folks in the 50s/60s envisioned the time around 2000s, flying cars etc. I think the same might happen to autonomous delivery, general AI and the like.
  - tutfbhuf 7y ago
    I wouldn't necessarily say slower, but rather different. The folks in the 50s/60s couldn't imagine how something called the Internet would change the world.
antidesitter 7y ago
Boltzmann brains may not occur after all [0], which is reassuring [2]. See De Sitter Space Without Dynamical Quantum Fluctuations [1]. [0] http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2014/05/05/squelching-boltzmann-brains-and-maybe-eternal-inflation/ http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2014/05/05/squelchi... [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.0298 https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.0298 [2] https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.00850 https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.00850
- Balgair 7y ago
  Oh man, all that is decidely out of my realm of expertise. Is there a TL;DR on why BBs are not possible?
  - raattgift 7y ago
    Essentially in that paper Carroll argues that the dilution away of the matter means that incoming radiation at a point p in the far future when there are billlllions of light-years of empty space around p is so redshifted that it makes no difference to the massive particle at p, even if by random chance a whole mess of incoming radiation arrives all at once. The counter-concern is that in a truly infinite universe, enough ultra-infrared energy arrives at p that (with more realistic matter) pair-production occurs in such a way that bound states (nuclei, atoms, molecules, brains-with-memories) start forming. Infinity is hard to cope with, and Carroll likes playing with those. Boltzmann Brains are infinitesimally unlikely in the really foreseeable future of our universe, but if we jump from foreseeable (say, trillions of years) to infinite, all sorts of weird stuff can happen. Including your brain in a jar, convinced that it is not in a jar but living (after being conventionally born) in a universe full of other humans and cats and stars and galaxies. What annoys Carroll is that small fluctuations are much more probable than large fluctuations, and a brain-in-a-jar-with-false-memories requires a much much much much (insert several more "much" here) much smaller fluctuation than a real universe with a hot big bang and structure formation and evolution of primates who walk around staring at smartphones.
    - jobigoud 7y ago
CuriousSkeptic 7y ago
If the universe reaches a final state at one point, isn’t the implication that this is where all process that defines time ends. If so, how can one speak of things happening “after” that point?
- octachron 7y ago
  The final state is a kind of thermal death where thermodynamics say that nothing happens anymore. However, thermodynamics is only an effective theory. It is false on tremendously large time scale: after a very very very large time a random fluctuation can bring down the universe entropy to pre-death level and restart a new non-boring universe (for a very short duration compared to the time spent in the thermal death).
  - CuriousSkeptic 7y ago
    To clarify. I wasn’t arguing against there being a possibility of an “after” with new universes from nothing. I was curious about what constitutes “a very very very large time” in a universe without clocks
kregasaurusrex 7y ago
If I had to choose a favorite article on all of Wikipedia, this would be it. Almost reads like a sci-fi novel of our own personal voyage through the cosmos.

irrational 7y ago

This kind of discussion always reminds me of the Asimov story "The Last Question" https://www.multivax.com/last_question.html https://www.multivax.com/last_question.html

Balgair 7y ago
Similar stories: http://devernay.free.fr/paradoxlost/html/the_end.html http://devernay.free.fr/paradoxlost/html/the_end.html https://urbigenous.net/library/nine_billion_names_of_god.html https://urbigenous.net/library/nine_billion_names_of_god.htm... http://www.eastoftheweb.com/short-stories/UBooks/TheyMade.shtml http://www.eastoftheweb.com/short-stories/UBooks/TheyMade.sh...
- benji-york 7y ago
  Another one of a similar theme: you may have seen: http://galactanet.com/oneoff/theegg_mod.html http://galactanet.com/oneoff/theegg_mod.html
psalminen 7y ago
Thanks. This was an amazing read.
jdironman 7y ago
That was a great read. Asimov was always so far ahead of his time.
om3n 7y ago
An excellently illustrated version of "The Last Question": https://imgur.com/gallery/9KWrH https://imgur.com/gallery/9KWrH
- Sendotsh 7y ago
  I’ve never seen the animated version. That is incredibly well done. The way it takes scrolling into account is brilliant.
- dr_dshiv 7y ago
  Brilliant! Thank you
baxtr 7y ago
Reading this, I am again reminded that technological progress is sometimes way slower than people think. Think about how the folks in the 50s/60s envisioned the time around 2000s, flying cars etc. I think the same might happen to autonomous delivery, general AI and the like.
- tutfbhuf 7y ago
  I wouldn't necessarily say slower, but rather different. The folks in the 50s/60s couldn't imagine how something called the Internet would change the world.

antidesitter 7y ago

Boltzmann brains may not occur after all [0], which is reassuring [2]. See De Sitter Space Without Dynamical Quantum Fluctuations [1]. [0] http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2014/05/05/squelching-boltzmann-brains-and-maybe-eternal-inflation/ http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2014/05/05/squelchi... [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.0298 https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.0298 [2] https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.00850 https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.00850

Balgair 7y ago
Oh man, all that is decidely out of my realm of expertise. Is there a TL;DR on why BBs are not possible?
- raattgift 7y ago
  Essentially in that paper Carroll argues that the dilution away of the matter means that incoming radiation at a point p in the far future when there are billlllions of light-years of empty space around p is so redshifted that it makes no difference to the massive particle at p, even if by random chance a whole mess of incoming radiation arrives all at once. The counter-concern is that in a truly infinite universe, enough ultra-infrared energy arrives at p that (with more realistic matter) pair-production occurs in such a way that bound states (nuclei, atoms, molecules, brains-with-memories) start forming. Infinity is hard to cope with, and Carroll likes playing with those. Boltzmann Brains are infinitesimally unlikely in the really foreseeable future of our universe, but if we jump from foreseeable (say, trillions of years) to infinite, all sorts of weird stuff can happen. Including your brain in a jar, convinced that it is not in a jar but living (after being conventionally born) in a universe full of other humans and cats and stars and galaxies. What annoys Carroll is that small fluctuations are much more probable than large fluctuations, and a brain-in-a-jar-with-false-memories requires a much much much much (insert several more "much" here) much smaller fluctuation than a real universe with a hot big bang and structure formation and evolution of primates who walk around staring at smartphones.
  - jobigoud 7y ago

CuriousSkeptic 7y ago

If the universe reaches a final state at one point, isn’t the implication that this is where all process that defines time ends. If so, how can one speak of things happening “after” that point?

octachron 7y ago
The final state is a kind of thermal death where thermodynamics say that nothing happens anymore. However, thermodynamics is only an effective theory. It is false on tremendously large time scale: after a very very very large time a random fluctuation can bring down the universe entropy to pre-death level and restart a new non-boring universe (for a very short duration compared to the time spent in the thermal death).
- CuriousSkeptic 7y ago
  To clarify. I wasn’t arguing against there being a possibility of an “after” with new universes from nothing. I was curious about what constitutes “a very very very large time” in a universe without clocks

kregasaurusrex 7y ago

If I had to choose a favorite article on all of Wikipedia, this would be it. Almost reads like a sci-fi novel of our own personal voyage through the cosmos.