Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

A Snapshot of the Universe 3 Trillion Years From Now

Posted by Zonk on from the really-gives-you-a-sense-of-perspective dept.

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."

15 of 197 comments (clear)

  1. reality is absurd by crow5599 · · Score: 4, Informative

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

  2. Re:We Are Gods by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  3. What about now? by Derling+Whirvish · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:What about now? by tigerhawkvok · · Score: 5, Informative

      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 .

      --
      Blog
  4. Ok that's it. by Ravear · · Score: 5, Funny

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

  5. Re:We Are Gods by gaderael · · Score: 5, Funny

    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'.
    --
    Anyone got a light for my sig?
  6. Re:uhh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  7. Static Universe? by ChemE · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  8. Re:We Are Gods by Ant+P. · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

  9. Re:We Are Gods by TheUglyAmerican · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    "Written on the pages is the answer to the never ending story..."
  10. Re:Redshift Increasing? by ColaMan · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    --

    You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
    There is a lot of hype here.
  11. Putting recent articles into perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny
    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!
  12. Oh well... by rizole · · Score: 5, Funny

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

  13. Re:We Are Gods by Lachlan+Hunt · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    --
    By reading this signature, you hereby agree with the content of the above comment.
  14. Re:uhh by CorSci81 · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.