Slashdot Mirror


Dying Star Mimics Our Sun's Death

coondoggie writes "In about 5 billion years, our Sun will face a nasty death. Scientists with the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics this week released dramatic new pictures of a dying star much like the Sun, about 550 light-years from Earth. According to the researchers, Chi Cygni has swollen in size to become a red giant star so large that if it were in our solar system it would swallow every planet out to Mars and cook the asteroid belt. The star has started to pulse dramatically, beating like a giant heart with a period of 408 days." The research team produced a video of the pulsating star, using infrared images captured via very long baseline interferometry.

149 comments

  1. Stop mimicking me! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Mom, he won't stop saying whatever I say!

    1. Re:Stop mimicking me! by JustOK · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well, sun, you're so bright, take care of it yourself.

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    2. Re:Stop mimicking me! by MrNaz · · Score: 1

      I bet you think that pun is just brilliant.

      --
      I hate printers.
    3. Re:Stop mimicking me! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's hard for me to look right at it!

    4. Re:Stop mimicking me! by digitalunity · · Score: 1

      Your wit is illuminating.

      --
      You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
    5. Re:Stop mimicking me! by JustOK · · Score: 1

      the brother was hit in the solar plexus and saws stars for awhile

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    6. Re:Stop mimicking me! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anatomy fail.

  2. Do we care? by iamacat · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    We'll be long gone - either in spacial or temporal sense - in a tiny fraction of that time. Even if there are no asteroid impact, killer viruses and so on, we will eventually deplete all natural resources - including ones need to make solar cells and wind turbines - and release enough long-lasting pollutants to make life unsustainable. So, an interesting astronomical curiosity, but no impact on our distant descendants. Now lets go work on being gone spacialy.

    1. Re:Do we care? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sometimes we study things just to scratch an itch, or possibly because the object under study might be of indirect relevance to us.

    2. Re:Do we care? by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Insightful

      and release enough long-lasting pollutants to make life unsustainable.

      Huh? I might buy that we could kill ourselves off but it seems to be giving us too much credit to assume that we could kill off all life on this rock. Life has been around in one form or another for billions of years and has survived far more cataclysmic events than anything we could ever hope to dish out.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    3. Re:Do we care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      Life has been around in one form or another for 6,000 years

      FTFY

    4. Re:Do we care? by lobiusmoop · · Score: 1

      Disagree. I think a small human population (in the millions) will be around on Earth to witness the event.
          I don't think the planet will be healthy enough for 7 billion of us, but I also don't think it will be poisoned enough to drop the population to 0 before Sol expires.
          I also think we'll be content in sending bacteria to other worlds rather than humans - they are a much more resilient and adaptable species really - humans are too dependent on a tight range of environmental conditions to live in other worlds, we just need to make the best of what we have here.

      --
      "I bless every day that I continue to live, for every day is pure profit."
    5. Re:Do we care? by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 1

      Let's hope that they're the last of the religious humans. What better way to rapture than to be taken by
      the sun / god / $PARENTAL_FIGURE ?

    6. Re:Do we care? by Thanshin · · Score: 1

      Do we know whether we should care? With what certainty?

      Not studying that which is far can be dangerous, as ignorance of the reality can bring ignorance about the very distance that made us disregard that knowledge.

    7. Re:Do we care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't see why we would be gone. Even after our sun goes boom, provided we manage to get some of ourselves off this rock on a permanent basis, parts of our solar system will still be livable, such as some of the moons of the gas giants, floating cities in the atmosphere of the gas giants at an elevation where the air pressure is one atmosphere (Jupiters surface gravity is 2 1/2 times ours which would be a problem for normal humans, but for Saturn and Uranus the surface gravity is actually slightly less than that of Earth and Neptunes is about 10% more than Earth, so there's not much of a problem there), any of the hundreds or thousands of dwarf planets and other massive objects past Neptune, not to mention any of the millions or billions of artificial human habitats humans could construct in the given time frame, even with current technology if we stopped dithering and got around to it. As for depletion of natural resources, there are plenty out there, the only really important resource is energy, and we'll still be getting lots of that from the sun even after it turns into a red giant. For cases where that isn't true and there's some rare element that we need for some vital purpose, we will probably eventually be able to just make more (at high energy cost) if the need is urgent enough. We've achieved part of the goal of the alchemists and been able to make gold from lead (easier to make gold from platinum though, or lead from gold) for decades now, the costs just aren't worth the returns. To my knowledge, there's no natural barrier to making any element we want even with current technology, it just has to be valuable enough to warrant the massive expenditure.

    8. Re:Do we care? by sznupi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think you have a hard time (as all of us do) imagining the time periods involved. There was even no mammals 1/10th of that 5 billion years ago; heck, life hadn't really colonized land yet.

      And anyway, the Sun is slowly becoming brighter as time passes; in around 1 billion years theere will be no oceans left on Earth, no biosphere.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    9. Re:Do we care? by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Even if - there won't be much difference in relation to current faiths (assuming also that there would be any humans left - those are two immense "if"). Just look at our historical record - mythologies don't survive even few thousands years, even when we do have good record of them.

      They are just becoming fairytales for adherents of mythologies prevalent at given time (little do they realize that it will be the same with theirs...)

      Add to the above that we have no way of determining the state, type of society or even consciousness 5 billion years from now - but it will be most certainly quite alien, not easily falling under our criteria.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    10. Re:Do we care? by mrsquid0 · · Score: 4, Informative

      The Sun is slowly getting hotter (over timescales of hundreds of millions of years) due to changes in the composition of its core. In about one billion years this increase in temperature will be enough to have boiled off Earth's oceans making Earth a dead planet. This will happen long before the Sun becomes a red giant, so unfortunately there will be no humans around to witness it, unless if we leave first and pay a visit to watch Sol's demise.

      --
      Just because you are paranoid does not mean that no-one is out to get you.
    11. Re:Do we care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Disagree. I think a small human population (in the millions) will be around on Earth to witness the event.

      I don't think the future humans will call themselves homo sapiens sapiens within a half a million years, let alone few billion. Whatever the species will be which will witness the event form sufficient distance, they need to be able to live past the event for it to have some significance.
      Our beloved Milky Way will collide with the Andromeda in about 2 billion years like an intergalactic ejaculation. If the Earth has not been sterilized by asteroids by then, perhaps the radiation resulting from the collision will finish the job.

    12. Re:Do we care? by druuna · · Score: 1

      I beg to differ....

      If humans destroy the ozone layer, everything living dies and a bare rock going approximately 107278.87 km/h is all that is left.

    13. Re:Do we care? by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Really? Everything you say? I didn't know UV could penetrate thousands of feet of seawater....

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    14. Re:Do we care? by druuna · · Score: 1

      Mmmmm..... there's always a smarter fish in the ocean.....

      I stand corrected!

    15. Re:Do we care? by sFurbo · · Score: 1

      Except for things living under water... It really is quite hard to kill a planet full of life.

    16. Re:Do we care? by jameskojiro · · Score: 1

      Everything Dies Rose, Everything Dies.....

      Sadly the only Humans around to witness the death of earth will be a bitchy trampoline and temporally displaced young girl who is the traveling companion of a rather creepy 900 year old man....

      But they will play "I want to get away" by softcell and "Toxic" by Britney Spears and the sun expands and burns earth to a crisp....

      --
      Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
    17. Re:Do we care? by jameskojiro · · Score: 2, Funny

      When Jesus comes back it will rock, I hope to get a ride off the planet if I am not raptured with an alien, "One of God's side projects."

      --
      Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
    18. Re:Do we care? by SBrach · · Score: 1

      Thanks for doing your part to save the planet by posting to slashdot with a typewriter instead of a power wasting computer. Your sacrifices are appreciated.

    19. Re:Do we care? by Gerafix · · Score: 1

      The Vogons didn't seem to have much trouble destroying Earth.

    20. Re:Do we care? by Spatial · · Score: 1

      Life has been around in one form or another for billions of years and has survived far more cataclysmic events than anything we could ever hope to dish out.

      Most of it didn't survive.

    21. Re:Do we care? by bradbury · · Score: 1

      I might suggest that you study the technology a bit more. The Earth can support a much large population than 7 billion people using bio/nanotechnology to its full extent. The biotechnology foundation is already in our hands and the nanotechnology foundation is being developed. If the population drops to zero it will be because of our own stupidity and focus on the short term rather than the long term view.

      We would never send bacteria on interstellar voyages. Yes there are some which are hardy enough to survive the trip but the costs are so high and the trip so long that it would be pointless. We would send nanorobots to dead or uninhabited (young) star systems programmed to transform them into potential places to live should individuals decide to leave the Earth.

    22. Re:Do we care? by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Another option is moving the Earth. Seems I've read that moving it close to the orbit of Mars will buy us a few billion more years.
      For a bonus we could put Mars into orbit around the Earth.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    23. Re:Do we care? by mrsquid0 · · Score: 1

      Moving the Earth would help, but it would need to be a gradual thing, done at the rate of something like a few kilometres per century in order to maintain a nearly constant insolation. I doubt that we would need to move out as far as Mars. As for putting Mars in orbit around the Earth, tides would be a big problem. It would make for some great romantic evenings though.

      --
      Just because you are paranoid does not mean that no-one is out to get you.
    24. Re:Do we care? by Golddess · · Score: 1

      ...And? What was your point with that? Are you implying that the # of species was fixed at the beginning of time and each time a species goes extinct we move one step closer to extinguishing all life forever because new species can never emerge?

      Yes yes, I know of the phrase "over 90% of all species that have ever existed are now extinct" (or something to that extent). But all that says is along the line of "9 million years ago, there were 100 different species on this planet. 8 million years ago, all 100 of those species died and 100 new species took over. Etc, all the way down to today", which when you look at it like that (instead of like "9 million years ago, there were 100 unique species. Today, there are only 10") it actually doesn't seem so bad.

      --
      "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
    25. Re:Do we care? by dryeo · · Score: 2, Informative

      Right now the only way known to move the Earth would involve repeated close flybys with an asteroid which would by its nature be very slow. Something that would need to be started soon in a geological sense.
      I don't think tides would be too much of a problem if Mars was orbiting at maybe 3 times the distance of the Moon or whatever distance would be roughly equal gravitationally to the Moon.
      Of course we would probably have to move the Moon as well to make the orbital mechanics simpler depending on how far the Moon has moved away from the Earth due to tidal friction.
      Article on moving the Earth, http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/planetearth/earth_move_010207.html
      Also this is interesting, http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/death_of_earth_000224.html

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    26. Re:Do we care? by vtstarin · · Score: 1

      Every thing has to be end one day. Birth of our sun is to die.

  3. Older than dirt by iamapizza · · Score: 1, Insightful

    1) We learned about this in school
    2) The picture is an artist's conception, I didn't see multiple pictures in TFA.
    3) ???
    4) Profit

    --
    Always proofread carefully to see if you any words out.
    1. Re:Older than dirt by uid7306m · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah, the crime of the modern educational system is that it produces people who know all the answers and have no sense of wonder. That "older than dirt" guy probably looks at a computer and only sees a white box.

      You should look at a computer and see the thread of execution hopping between kernel routines and pausing at mutexes. You should see the electrons whooshing through the silicon, underneath an overhanging crystalline gate electrode. You should feel the electric field sucking at you: it's almost strong enough to rip electrons out of the SiO2 dielectric. And back up at higher level, those spin locks should be like an amusement park ride: puke your guts out if you go around in one for more than a few microseconds. :)

      Yah, we knew stars became red giants. But that's not the right way to look at it.

    2. Re:Older than dirt by uid7306m · · Score: 1

      Rated "insightful"? Claiming that astronomy is done for profit?

    3. Re:Older than dirt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      xkcd has a similar idea: Abstraction

    4. Re:Older than dirt by daveime · · Score: 1

      Hey, that's the script for Tron.

      Now where did I leave my de-rezzed bike and neon strobe jumpsuit ?

    5. Re:Older than dirt by daveime · · Score: 1, Troll

      Konrad Zuse (1910-1995) is recognized as the inventor of the first freely programmable computer, and he was European, German to be precise.

      Now STFU, stupid American.

    6. Re:Older than dirt by master_p · · Score: 1

      The exact same picture was used in other sites as an artist's conception of Betelgeuse...

    7. Re:Older than dirt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Awww, what's the matter? Is Angry Fatty angry about something? There there, you go blame everyone else for your wasted life. There there, don't cry, Angry Fatty, someone will comfort you and make you feel better! Probably not a girl, though, Angry Fatty doesn't get girls, does he?

    8. Re:Older than dirt by Tim+C · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I have one word for you: Babbage.

    9. Re:Older than dirt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, the crime of the modern educational system is that it produces people who believe they know all the answers and have no sense of wonder. ...

      Fixed that for you.

    10. Re:Older than dirt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ford Prefect and Zaphod Beeblebrox came from there?

    11. Re:Older than dirt by khallow · · Score: 1

      The education system has been death spiraling ever since Socrates corrupted the youth of Athens.

    12. Re:Older than dirt by hansamurai · · Score: 1

      Older than dirt!? So what, this could happen like any moment then??

    13. Re:Older than dirt by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Please don't feed the trolls. Your response only encourages them.

    14. Re:Older than dirt by mcgrew · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm a geezer, but I agree with you -- but it's not geezers that see a computer as a black box, it's those uneducated in its workings. How many young people do you know that have programmed in assembly?

      And I think you missed his main point, that the article's headline was disingenuous at least. If they have photos, why show an artist's conception? As he said, TFA didn't say anything I didn't read about when I was seven, and that was fifty years ago.

      TFA is pure bunk. It's only good point is that you can google for the actual photos.

    15. Re:Older than dirt by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Could you imagine a smelly European coming up with technology to rival Windows 7

      No, thankfully.

      [Exit, whistling Beethoven's 9th]

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    16. Re:Older than dirt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      You should look at a computer and see the thread of execution hopping between kernel routines and pausing at mutexes. You should see the electrons whooshing through the silicon, underneath an overhanging crystalline gate electrode. You should feel the electric field sucking at you: it's almost strong enough to rip electrons out of the SiO2 dielectric. And back up at higher level, those spin locks should be like an amusement park ride: puke your guts out if you go around in one for more than a few microseconds. :)

      You might want to stop tripping acid when you use your computer...

    17. Re:Older than dirt by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

      Yah, we knew stars became red giants. But that's not the right way to look at it.

      This is true, but if (if) we're still around when our insignificant little star turns red, the most gobsmackingly awesome thing is that it's unlikely we'll be anyone we'd recognise now.

  4. global warming by fearlezz · · Score: 3, Funny

    So in about 5 billion years we won't hear all that global warming talk anymore?
    Great!

    --
    .sig: No such file or directory
    1. Re:global warming by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      I assure you it will be pretty warm when the Sun turns into a Red Giant.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    2. Re:global warming by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      It's called climate change now. That way the dumbasses can say," We've never been at war with global warming, we've always been at war with global cooling"

      And so it goes.

    3. Re:global warming by rhook · · Score: 1

      Everyone will be talking about solar warming by then.

    4. Re:Global warming by Dunbal · · Score: 0, Troll

      we humans would destroy the earth lot before by global warming

            Apparently we're going to have to work a lot harder to do that because the Earth has been through (and shrugged off) far worse changes than the current one.

            Now consider that along with the fact that recently Dr. Maslowski confirmed that Al Gore was misusing and misquoting data supplied by him to support his political agenda. Consider the mere fact that the push for the idea of "global warming" is coming from the POLITICAL, not the scientific, end of society. Consider the fact that "global warming" has opened up a multi-billion dollar a year "carbon offset" market, and new taxation revenue streams for government.

            There is a motive to convince you that the world is going to end. People are willing to believe the world will end for any reason, from the arrival of comets, to planetary alignments and eclipses, to the "return" of "the son of man" (who is coming soon - any day now...). If politicians start clamoring for it, and misuse scientific data to "back up" their claims, there are any number of sheep who will bleat to that tune. To the point where people are already turning violent at "protests" - which can only represent a certain degree of fanaticism about the subject. But simply believing something to be true DOES NOT MAKE IT TRUE.

            Still, don't worry. The oil won't last forever. In fact, once we reach peak oil, its availability will diminish dramatically due to exorbitant prices (look what happened when oil reached a mere $150/bbl, now imagine it at $1500/bbl) as countries compete for the last drops of oil and society has NO CHOICE but to switch to alternative energy. Since the Earth has already demonstrated that it has returned from far worse temperatures/CO2 levels than today, even if global warming was "man-made", the Earth will purge itself of "our pollution" in a few hundred years once we stop "polluting the atmosphere with our CO2".

            However if it's not man-made, well, temperatures are going to rise even when the oil is gone. That will have a lot of people scratching their heads and wondering why they're paying all those carbon taxes in 100 years or so, when oil production/consumption is diminished or negligible. And they will stay at their peak for a hundred years or so. I can imagine some politicians in the far future patting themselves on the back when temperatures return to normal...

       

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    5. Re:global warming by edremy · · Score: 1
      In all seriousness the Sun is gradually getting brighter, and the increased heat will kill off Earth's biosphere long before it gets to the red giant phase. We only have 1-2 billion years tops, not 5.

      You may now panic

      --
      "Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
    6. Re:global warming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So in about 5 billion years we won't hear all that global warming talk anymore?
      Great!

      You wish.

      By that time, a bunch of Freedom of Information requests will have been flushed down a REAL black hole, scientific publications from Sirius that dare be critical of warming will be magically deemed "not serious peer-reviewed journals", and Al Gore will be blaming humans for the heat death of the universe.

  5. Don't Panic by shreshtha · · Score: 1

    We humans will destroy earth and Life much before this Star Life process gets its chance to do so. I wished to die the star way...

    1. Re:Don't Panic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is fatalism the new cool thing?

      It's nearly impossible for us to absolutely destroy life on this planet. Even in a very worst case scenario, some (by which I actually mean many) single-celled organisms would survive and evolution would take off again. Of course, that's no guarantee for sapience to re-evolve in the allotted 5 billion years.

  6. Re:Do we care? (come on!!!) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ahhh okay!
    I suppose that we must live on the trees, thinking how we feed our children.
    But... I just think on that before and that don't really work for us h-been [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human]

    Now really? You don't care?
    Come on man, It's ./ "news for NERDs. stuff that matters"

    If you don't care, you are @wrong pLace! :p

    [1POST here, I don't resist.]

    Best regards,

    peace!

    vinn

  7. Global warming by top3dentists · · Score: 1

    Isnt something we are seeing in the movie of 2012. Nothing to panic we humans would destroy the earth lot before by global warming therefore essential for us to have a solution for global warming.

  8. Is that a dish? by Sparx139 · · Score: 1

    Is an asterid belt some new meal from Burger King or something?

    --
    Our culture doesn't get smarter, it just finds new ways of being retarded.
  9. Where are the pictures? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the SD link I can see "an artist's conception" of the dying star. This can be misleading. On the other hand, the video is cool. It could be cooler if it was accompanied by a TARDIS sound effect...

  10. Tour de force by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Damn, that's beautiful. Just thinking about the image processing and telescopes behind this gives me goose pimples.

  11. Worst case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's up with all the negativity here? Didn't it occur that just maybe, we would manage to get off this rock and start colonizing the rest of the universe way before that happens.

    1. Re:Worst case by dltaylor · · Score: 1

      Not if the intelligent life out there has any capability to stop us.

      There must be intelligent life in the universe, because none of them have contacted us yet. Joy-riding adolescent hooligans do not count, regardless of what they're riding, driving, or, flying.

    2. Re:Worst case by francium+de+neobie · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Again, what's up with the negativity?

      First, why would other intelligent life bother to stop us? Because resources in the universe is scarce? Last time I checked we haven't discovered any Dyson Sphere built around any of the stars in the Milky Way. And why has nobody scooped up all the intergalactic medium in outer space? Have our telescopes seen anybody moving stars around for energy transport? People using the beam from active galactic nuclei as weapons? No? If those ultra-intelligent life are really as good as they're hyped up to be, why aren't we seeing some totally amazing stuff happening all around us?

      Second thing, it didn't really take much time for life to appear on Earth on a cosmic timescale. If you look at the time it took for our solar system and life to form, it is actually on the same order of magnitude to the whole history of the whole universe itself. If we're one of the late-comers, shouldn't we find that the universe has formed 1 trillion years ago, our solar system has only formed in the last 5 billion years, and life only in the last 2 billion years? Instead, what we're seeing now is, the universe formed some 13 billion years ago, our solar system formed 9 billion years ago, and life appeared in the last 3.5 billion years. There's actually a pretty decent chance that we're one of the earliest intelligent life in the universe.

      You know, if immortality is within reach of my generation, I'm totally looking forward to have an AGN as my toy.

    3. Re:Worst case by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Last time I checked we haven't discovered any Dyson Sphere built around any of the stars in the Milky Way.

            Sorry to nitpick but - kind of by definition, if someone managed to build a Dyson sphere around their star to harvest all of it's solar output, we wouldn't see that star. Just like you can't see a match when it's in a box. Possibly the only way to detect it would be via its gravity.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    4. Re:Worst case by stevelinton · · Score: 1

      if someone managed to build a Dyson sphere around their star to harvest all of it's solar output, we wouldn't see that star. Just like you can't see a match when it's in a box. Possibly the only way to detect it would be via its gravity.

      Not so. The Dyson sphere would reradiate all the star's output as waste heat at whatever temperature the inhabitants liked to live. It would look like a large infrared giant, instead of a small yellow star.

    5. Re:Worst case by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Arthur C Clarke once mused that gamma ray bursts were alien industrial accidents.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    6. Re:Worst case by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      There must be intelligent life in the universe, because none of them have contacted us yet.

      I think your tongue is firmly in your cheek with that twisted logic, but for the wooshful among us, it's possible that our solar system is the first for life to develop at all. There may not only not be intelligent life elsewhere, there may not be any life at all except here. We just don't know yet.

    7. Re:Worst case by qinjuehang · · Score: 1

      If those ultra-intelligent life are really as good as they're hyped up to be, why aren't we seeing some totally amazing stuff happening all around us?

      Prime Directive ;)

    8. Re:Worst case by yohohogreengiant · · Score: 1

      The last invention of an intelligent species in the universe is realistic simulation. That's it. After that species degenerate without ever building the big stuff we can see. That's the fate of self-made gods. I think we'll blow ourselves up first, though. Or sweat to death with AGW.

    9. Re:Worst case by francium+de+neobie · · Score: 1

      Even with realistic simulation, the law of natural selection and the law of scarcity still apply. As long as the civilization still reproduce and expand, in economy and/or in population - they'll always need more from the real world.

      So I don't think realistic simulation changes too much here. The civilization will still need to expand and innovate.

  12. Weird video...? by qinjuehang · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It really really looks like a elliptical eclipsing binary, with one dim red giant, and a bright smaller white star. Note: The video is false color.

    1. Re:Weird video...? by Katchu · · Score: 1

      Those were my thoughts, also. There is something asymmetrical about it and I can't imagine anything that would cause such a roiling, yet periodic, effect.

      --
      Keep Doing Good.
    2. Re:Weird video...? by qinjuehang · · Score: 1

      If it were really a star pulsating, shouldn't it show irregular patches? I mean, granulation in our sun is not static over a year... Thus I believe they are overlooking the obvious.

    3. Re:Weird video...? by Sockatume · · Score: 4, Informative

      I assume that the star is tilted relative to us and there's some anisotropy of the atmosphere due to its oblate shape. If the poles were hotter and one was tilted at us, I guess.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    4. Re:Weird video...? by KnownIssues · · Score: 1

      NERD!

    5. Re:Weird video...? by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      RTFA: “Observations by the Infrared Optical Telescope Array found that, at minimum radius, Chi Cygni shows marked inhomogeneities due to roiling "hotspots" on its surface.”

      Of course, that is only a theory, too.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    6. Re:Weird video...? by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      At that distance I'm not sure that we can really detect any variation in surface appearance. It's more just vague shape, color, and brightness.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    7. Re:Weird video...? by qinjuehang · · Score: 1

      What disturbes me is how the "hotspot" appears in the same location every cycle. It would of course make sense if the poles are hotter, but that the poles are significantly hotter doesn't make sense in itself, given the convection going on in most stars, and that hot gases/plasma would move to areas of lower gravity, in other words, the equator. And that the pole sticking out, implying a cigar-shaped star at peak brightness (whereas centripetal force should make it an oblate sphere bulging in equatorial directions...)

  13. dying star by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    oh my god you had me scared there for a minit I thought it said 5 thousand

  14. Link to images, etc. by severn2j · · Score: 5, Informative

    For those that cant follow links to the source, the images/mov and artists impression is here

    http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/2009/pr200923_images.html

    1. Re:Link to images, etc. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I remember this http://www.eso.org/public/images/eso0927a/ picture of Betelgeuse, where the news of the day was it's bulge on. Whoever thought that Chi Cygni is it's evil twin?

  15. ObXKCD by AlecC · · Score: 2, Interesting

    http://xkcd.com/676/ which happens to appear with exquisite timing

    --
    Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
  16. Mimics something that hasn't happened? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Our sun hasn't died yet, so shouldn't it be the other way around? In a few billion years, our sun will mimic the death of this star.

    Alright, I'm done being pedantic now.

    1. Re:Mimics something that hasn't happened? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Technically, it is relative to the observer, especially since stars may be reborn.

    2. Re:Mimics something that hasn't happened? by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      Depends. That's only the case if you think of time as a linear progression. We certainly perceive it as that, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily so. A brick falling to the ground perceives up and down to be a linear progression over which is has no control, but to the outside observer they're independent points that can be moved between as one wishes.

      If time is the same outside of our frame of reference (ie, if t is just another axis that can be adjusted much like we perceive x, y, and z to be), then the sun dying later in time wouldn't make a difference as to which was mimicking which.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    3. Re:Mimics something that hasn't happened? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Our sun hasn't died yet, so shouldn't it be the other way around?

      The next Final Fantasy game should include a new character(-class): the Reverse Mimic! They mimic what another character is going to do. Which would really mean the Reverse Mimic would do something the character could, and then that character has no choice but to do that when their turn came up.

      If they wanted to play it like a joke character, the RM would always use the most useless abilities, or do things like always cast Doom on bosses.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
  17. Comforting thoughts by ignavus · · Score: 2, Funny

    It's alright. The Yellowstone Caldera will blow up long before then and kill us all. So we won't be around to face the heat death of the Sun.

    It is good to know these things.

    --
    I am anarch of all I survey.
    1. Re:Comforting thoughts by mdm-adph · · Score: 1

      Nah, we've survived supervolcano eruptions before as a species, and that was when we were still living in caves and bashing women over the heads with sticks (not that Republicans have ever stopped).

      --
      It is by my will alone my thoughts acquire motion; it is by the juice of the coffee bean that the thoughts acquire speed
  18. Mars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think if it will swallow Mars is still an open question. I think the current majority is rather that it will not swallow Mars, but only be so big that the sun will extend to the point where Mars is now. But Mars might no longer be there because Sun has lost too much mass till then.

  19. Just a thought by CxDoo · · Score: 1

    It has nothing to do with TFA but it just occured to me - do we know of any system where the central body is not a star (or a more massive object), for example let's imagine Jupiter in place of the Sun?
    Would it be possible to detect this kind of system at all?

    --
    "Blah blah blah." - [citation needed]
    1. Re:Just a thought by Jkasd · · Score: 1

      In a binary star system, the center of mass could be relatively empty if the stars are close to the same mass. But since gravity is what keeps the whole system together, the most massive object will tend to be in the center. If you somehow switched the sun and Jupiter, the sun would become the new center again, while everything else would chaotically fall back into new orbits around it.

    2. Re:Just a thought by ubergeek09 · · Score: 0

      i think what he is trying to say is "what if there was no star in the system?" as in the center of mass would be a large planet like jupiter or maybe a black hole. We would have no way of detecting these unless they some how blocked/warped the light of other known stars

    3. Re:Just a thought by CxDoo · · Score: 1

      Yep, that's what I wanted to say.

      --
      "Blah blah blah." - [citation needed]
    4. Re:Just a thought by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      Yes - brown dwarfs. Essentially matter can start to clump together anywhere. Sometimes it clumps in large amounts, sometimes smaller.

      If the object at the center of the system accretes enough mass to being nuclear fusion then it is a star, with the smallest being red dwarfs (stars then change colors and size as they become more massive - they also have shorter "lives" as they grow more massive).

      Sometimes though the accretion of matter is insufficient to begin fusion, and you get a brown dwarf, which is basically a failed star. It's chemically pretty close to Jupiter, but usually quite a bit more massive (it's about the same SIZE though - without becoming a star Jupiter is about as big as things typically get. they just get more dense as their mass goes up).

      As to something "more massive" than a star - not really. Typically anything past a certain point begins fusion and becomes a star - period. The fusion process will give enough pressure for the star to support itself and keep itself from collapsing. The mass of the star can keep going up indefinitely and it'll fuse elements happily until it's mass can no longer support fusion of elements past a point. At that point a REALLY massive star will no longer be able to support it's outer layers, in which case it implodes and generates a super nova. Past a certain point it fully collapses in to a black hole (which is that super massive things become), but black holes were once stars.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
  20. Swan Song by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Being that the star is Chi Cygni, I suppose this is its 'swan song'...

  21. Wow. Just wow. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've never seen so many who claim to be so intelligent display such a lack of knowledge as I have here. Stick to comic books and G4 guys.

  22. Baited with title... And no pictures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Articles like this piss me off. They bait you with a really juicy title like, "Close-Up Photos of Dying Star Show Our Sun's Fate"... And then not only don't have any of these close-up pictures for me to check out, but there's not even a link or sentence that tells me if there's a website I can go to look at them.

    Of course, Science Daily is notorious for this.

  23. I Didn't Know The Sun Blows by ThePadrinoDotCom · · Score: 0, Troll

    I Didn't Know The Sun Blows But today found out why the sun will blow up seems we need to start prepareing it's only 5 billion years from now. The Padrino Dot Com http://www.thepadrino.com/

  24. Disfactual SD FUD by DynaSoar · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The folks at Harvard-Smithsonian and IOTA did some fine work. It could have been reported as they presented it and been very interesting science. When it gets filtered through a fake science reporting agent like Science Daily, and rewritten by one of said agent's fiction writers with only enough relevant background to make them capable of finding FUDish material that wouldn't be entirely inapplicable, the result is something that should have been rejected by the only places to which it should have been submitted: Hollywood movie producers.

    The sun is a nearly a dwarf star. It will undergo a very mild death compared to larger stars. They will nova or supernova, but the sun will placidly swell to a red giant, pulse as it burns out, then shrink to white dwarf. Only true dwarf stars will undergo a milder demise, skipping the red giant phase. No amount of mediocre Hollywood scifi horrification and awfulism will change the fact that our mild mannered stellar companion has no evil supervillian alter ego waiting to take over at its end of days. Adding such extraneous comic book (as opposed to the more respectable graphic fiction) "reporting" is only done by a writer, or at the behest of an editor or publisher, who have no confidence in the science itself or their reportage of it being sufficiently interesting. rather than risk being factual for a readership interested in such things, they attempt to draw in a greater audience with an interest and education in science equal to that of the author's writing style, with the assumption that by adding the pseudo-scientific car wreck material they can get that larger audience to slow down and rubber neck at the bloody mess of hyperbole spray painted over the facts.

    SD is as useful and accurate a source for science as The Economist, which has also been quoted here for similarly poor reasons. Slashdotters are for the most part sophisticated enough to be able to appreciate the facts without having to viddy the horrorshow while sipping a bit of the moloko plus (obSFref, Clockwork Orange). Th remainder, while not so inclined to factualism in science, are still so invariably capable when it comes to traditional /. reply banter that an article consisting of raw data would likely end up in a verbal tsunami repleat with references to Microsoft, Google and MafIAA (blaming them for the stellar death no doubt) and welcoming our Red Giant Overlords and their Soviet Russian Beowulf Clusters.

    The very worst part of this example of poor writing in lieu of science journalism is being kept separate because it has nothing to do with science. Something that is happening now (or being observed now, relatively speaking) does not and can not mimic something that will happen in the future, whether that be in 5 billion years, or next week when you accept a job writing equally badly for an outlet equally unwilling to risk actual factual journalism. Unless, of course, one an say that one's present insufficient income from writing such trash mimics the income one will receive in the future when one continues of a career path of writing badly for outlets intentionally presenting said trash. All the more reason to stay in school, kids, and if you quit, go back.

    Now, I don't expect /. readers to follow Astrophysical Journal and the like in order to get unadulterated science to report on here. But I would hope that the submitters and editors would at least acknowledge the quality of the sources by presenting them such as "With their typical crunchy coating of fiction, fact mangling and FUD surrounding a center of creamy scientific nougat still untouched by science journalists' hands, Science Daily reassures us that it is 'an excellent driver' while setting fire to and waving madly an interesting article" dot dot dot.

    --
    "I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
    1. Re:Disfactual SD FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Truly an "excelelent" rebuttal there.

    2. Re:Disfactual SD FUD by Sockatume · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What specific objections do you have? You've rambled on but it strikes me that most of the content you object to comes from the CfA's own press release.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    3. Re:Disfactual SD FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lol, you think we really are going to read everything carefully? We are busy people with real jobs; science, IT, etc. If you dont like it go somewhere else. And dont start about getting new editors..this job is a lot harder than one would think and we do a nearly excelelent job at what we do.

      Honestly, I'm starting to think most of your editorial deficiencies, like the typos two "dont" and "excelelent" above, are completely intentional. They are meant to irritate your readers so you can get some sort of twisted enjoyment from their reaction. Do you toss kittens into bathtubs full of water in your spare time as well?

  25. From TFS by electricbern · · Score: 4, Funny

    beating like a giant heart with a period

    What a bloody mess.

    --
    alias possession='chmod 666 satan && ls /dev > il && tail daemon.log'
  26. I panicked by Hognoxious · · Score: 2, Funny

    I panicked for a moment - I thought it said five million.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    1. Re:I panicked by TrekkieGod · · Score: 1

      I panicked for a moment - I thought it said five million.

      The homo sapiens species has only been around roughly 500,000 years. Human civilization, from its absolutely earliest form, has only been around for about 14,000 years.

      Even if it said five million, I dont think that would be reason to panic. That's a really, really long time. Although maybe that's the joke you were trying to make, and I'm too dense to get it.

      --

      Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.

  27. Am I the only one by elrous0 · · Score: 2, Funny

    I saw the "Dying Star" in the headline and thought this article was about Lindsay Lohan.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:Am I the only one by whikket · · Score: 1

      Yes.

  28. Not very long baseline interferometry by ogre7299 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Just a minor correction. the scientists did use interferometry but it was not "very long baseline interferometry". The "very long" term applies to the telescopes being separated by extreme distances, say over the entire United States as is the case of the VLBA. Also, the VLBA can only function in radio wavelengths because the data can be taken at the individual telescopes an recombined later. With near-infrared interferometry, what the authors of this study were using, requires that the light from each telescope be sent down an optical tube with mirrors and recombined at a central location which constrains the IOTA telescopes to be close together.

    IOTA was dismantled a few years ago, geiven that a new optical/near-infrared interferometry was coming online, CHARA http://www.chara.gsu.edu/CHARA/

    1. Re:Not very long baseline interferometry by radtea · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the info! The article was unclear on that, as on much else. I particularly liked that "stars are really far away" was given as the second reason for this kind of imaging being difficult, as if the extreme distances didn't make this sort of thing completely impossible until a decade or so ago.

      The video is wonderful, and accounting for the persistent asymmetry in the early expansion phase will no doubt result in a more detailed understanding of the oscillation mechanism of these stars. First rate science, badly mangled as usual by /. and the tabloid science press.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    2. Re:Not very long baseline interferometry by bradbury · · Score: 1

      Yes, but the question is *why* can the data be recombined in radio astronomy and not IR astronomy. I would think if its just a problem of having the actual light waves then it would be as easy as running an ultra-high purity fiber optic cable between the two observatories. But if radio detectors can measure the frequencies sufficiently then why aren't we at the stage where IR or light detectors could as well?

    3. Re:Not very long baseline interferometry by Agripa · · Score: 1

      Yes, but the question is *why* can the data be recombined in radio astronomy and not IR astronomy. I would think if its just a problem of having the actual light waves then it would be as easy as running an ultra-high purity fiber optic cable between the two observatories. But if radio detectors can measure the frequencies sufficiently then why aren't we at the stage where IR or light detectors could as well?

      We currently can manipulate radio and microwave frequencies much better than even long infrared. In order for interferometry to work, the receivers have to maintain coherence between each other. For optical interferometry, this means using a coherent laser along the baseline to control the distance down the wavelength and combining the actual optical signals directly while at radio and microwave frequencies, the precision required is so much less that any number of techniques will work including just coherently sampling the incoming data and then using digital processing at a significantly later time.

  29. "thin gas" by time sun xpands to earth orbit by peter303 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    A hugely expanded sun would be a hot, tenuous gas by the time it expands to earth orbit. People could acutal live in it with minor protection. But the hot gas would relentlessly erode anything on the earth's surface. And eventually it would corrode away the earth itself after millions of years.

  30. No, that's Betelgeuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  31. Porn star? by Hurricane78 · · Score: 2, Funny

    New close-up photos of the surface of this distant star show its throbbing motions in unprecedented detail.

    Rule 34, baby!!

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    1. Re:Porn star? by SheeEttin · · Score: 1

      You joke, but it's true. :(
      http://rule34.paheal.net/post/list/sun/1. (Not safe for work in any way, shape, or form.)

  32. It's not "mimics" by HikingStick · · Score: 1

    A presently dying star cannot mimic the death of our own star, since it has not happened yet. How about using "foreshadows" instead?

    --
    I use irony whenever I can, but my shirts are still wrinkled...
  33. Lazy Artists? by Thumper_SVX · · Score: 1

    I thought that "Artists Conception" looked oddly familiar. Then I remembered this; http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/Discoveries/2009/0729/are-astronomers-watching-the-beginning-of-the-end-for-betelgeuse

    I seem to remember it was also in a Slashdot article that references this.

    Uhm... so which is it, people? Or is it just clip art?

    1. Re:Lazy Artists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny you could track down all those other links but couldn't see in RTFA that it's marked as an artist's conception of Betelgeuse.

  34. Re:First! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you werent first dildo

  35. Thinking Dark Matter by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

    Not so. The Dyson sphere would reradiate all the star's output as waste heat at whatever temperature the inhabitants liked to live. It would look like a large infrared giant, instead of a small yellow star.

    If their technology was sufficiently advanced, they would be able to capture all EM output of the star. So, like the parent, I believe that we've already found evidence of advanced civilizations wrapping off the stars for themselves: "dark matter."

    --
    I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    1. Re:Thinking Dark Matter by stevelinton · · Score: 1

      Assuming their technology is advanced, but not magic -- ie they are working within the physical laws as we understand them, then they still have to obey conservation of energy and dump waste heat somehow. The colder the temperatures they, or their machines, work at, the larger they can make the sphere and the longer the wavelength of the dumped heat but it still comes out somewhere. If they were so numerous as to be very much of the dark matter, they'd show up as a pattern in the cosmic microwave background, (since we know where the dark matter is) and they don't.

    2. Re:Thinking Dark Matter by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 1

      If their technology was sufficiently advanced, they would be able to capture all EM output of the star. So, like the parent, I believe that we've already found evidence of advanced civilizations wrapping off the stars for themselves: "dark matter."

      The thing's got to have a tailpipe.

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    3. Re:Thinking Dark Matter by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      The tailpipe is in another universe. ("Sufficiently advanced" and all that...)

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
  36. good job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    +1, Family Guy reference

    1. Re:good job by Golddess · · Score: 2, Informative

      Fail.

      It was American Dad.

      --
      "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
    2. Re:good job by deltharius · · Score: 1

      +1, Family Guy reference

      Yes, since Family Guy was created by Seth McFarlane, who also created American Dad... which is where GP's quote came from. So, really a very thin, tenuous reference.

    3. Re:good job by jameskojiro · · Score: 1

      It is funny that American Dad has been somewhat funnier than Family Guy in the last year....

      The Cleveland show is a bit of a disaster and I wish Cleveland would move back to Quahog...

      --
      Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
  37. Mimics? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How can Chi Cygni mimic something our sun has never done before?

  38. Title Nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Dying Star Mimics Our Sun's Death"

    A star can't mimic our sun dying if our sun hasn't died yet.

  39. Unsustainable? by DeadPixels · · Score: 1

    Here's something I don't get about the universe - maybe someone more well versed in astronomy or physics could educate me. The universe itself seems to be a fundamentally unsustainable system, dying from the moment it was 'born'. So far, I don't believe we've found any star that has been around "forever" and hasn't burned itself out yet, and I don't think we've seen any new ones created recently either (correct me if I'm wrong on either count).

    Granted, 5 billion years is a long time when compared to the human lifespan (or even the existence of the entire species), but it seems interesting that a universe that has existed for 13 billion years seems to have stars blowing themselves up well before then. With the number of stars we've seen die (and counting black holes, as well), it seems as if they've been dying for a very long time, considering how far some of them are away from earth.

    Just a thought, I guess, but it seems kind of depressing to think that someday the universe might just be nothing but black holes, dead stars, and rocks.

    1. Re:Unsustainable? by argent · · Score: 1

      New stars are continually created out of interstellar dust and gas. You can see "shells" of new stars forming at the edges of supernova remnants as the supernova's shock-wave compresses the interstellar medium.

      This can't go on forever, obviously, but second and third generation stars are common. Our sun is one of them.

  40. It is quite simply fiction by bradbury · · Score: 1

    The problem with the /. lead-in and the SD article quoting an astronomer is that THEY ARE BOTH PROBABLY WRONG! I have this problem all the time when I see shows on the Discovery Channel or the Science Channel where they explain how the sun *will* die in 5 billion years (The implicit assumption is that the current natural laws of physics will apply for that period -- and within an intelligent species framework that may be completely false. What they SHOULD be saying is "The sun, if allowed to continue on its natural evolutionary course, will die in 5 billion years." But qualified it, of course, sounds less dramatic. IMO, the probability of that occurring, is nearly zero. Why? Because our solar system is inhabited by an intelligent technological species and if we could stop talking about the next great iPhone app or global warming [1] for just a minute we might begin a discussion about how to develop real molecular scale nanotechnology [2] and the best way to approach dismantling the sun so it never becomes a red giant.

    For the unaware, we are "dismantling" planets *now* -- what do you think launching satellites to explore foreign bodies (that don't return to earth) or crashing them into foreign bodies (where some of the material ejected may reach escape velocity for said body) is??? Now given the influx in asteroid/comet/solar ion debris I suspect the Earth is still in a net mass gaining state -- but we know how to invert that situation should we choose to do so. We do understand the physics involved and have the technology to manage it.

    What most people are unaware of is that there has been some thought devoted to planetary dismantlement. Freeman Dyson did some (in discussing in 1960 in Science the dismantlement of Jupiter to create a Dyson shell) [1]). David Criswell [3] thought of some more/better paths to dismantlement.

    So the answer is very clear -- we dismantle the sun at a rate which slows its aging -- so the 5 Billion years number becomes ENTIRELY fictional -- we cannot predict what a technological civilization would do. But there are significant odds that it might dismantle the sun to the point where its lifetime is on the order of that of a red dwarf (several hundred billion years or more with no red giant phase). Ample time to decide when and how to move to a new star with a new lease on life.

    1. In a molecular nanotechnology enabled world, there isn't really a "global warming" perspective to worry about. It is too simple to take the CO2 out of the atmosphere and store it in some inert form. People who are in the hard-core "global warming" camp should ask themselves why when I wrote the paper "Sapphire Mansions" in 2001, did I not instead call them "Diamond Mansions"? [4] It was because I did not wish to encourage the sucking of CO2 out of the atmosphere to the extent that all plants would DIE!
    2. Molecular scale Nanotechnology has been defined and reviewed since 1992 (Drexler, Nanosystems) -- over 15 ago!. During that period nobody has said it is "incorrect", nobody has said it violates "laws of physics", at the most people may have said it is "hard". But if I can point out 4+ paths to get there -- so one has to wonder if it is simply not a lack of technological imagination that keeps us from already being there (and as a species having such methods in our technology toolbox).
    3. David R. Criswell from Interstellar Migration and the Human Experience, Eds.: Ben R. Finney and Eric M. Jones, University of California Press, 1985, Chapter 4, pp 50-87. 4. It may be worth noting that the "Sapphire Mansions" phase of human development I consider to probably be limited to a few decades -- while the "Matrioshka Brains" phase lasts the life of our engineered sun (or longer).