Galactic Survey: The Universe Dying as Old Stars Fade Faster Than New Ones Are Born

astroengine writes: A study of more than 200,000 galaxies, encompassing wavelengths of light from the far ultraviolet to infrared, shows that the universe is producing half as much energy as it did 2 billion years ago and continues to fade. "Newer galaxies are simply putting out less energy than galaxies did in the past," astronomer Mehmet Alpaslan, with NASA's Ames Research Center in Mountain View, Calif., told Discovery News. In other words, astronomers, for the first time, have gathered observational evidence that our universe is slowly marching toward its eventual heat death (in a few trillion years time).

Comments

getting old

[The Real Dr John]

is getting really old

Re:getting old

[Anonymous Coward]

so are you - way past time to retire

Re:getting old

[rudy_wayne]

Netcraft confirms, the universe is dying.

Re:getting old

[PopeRatzo]

Netcraft confirms, the universe is dying.

Netflix confirms too.

Re:getting old

[K. S. Kyosuke]

the universe

Also known as the big scary dark thing.

Re:getting old

[wardrich86]

Also known as the big scary dark thing.

Big, scary, even darker thing now.

Re:getting old

[K. S. Kyosuke]

But BSED is not nearly as nice an acronym.

"Heat death"?

[Rick in China]

I thought it would be a freeze death, no?

Re:"Heat death"?

[fisted]

It's an entropy death.

Re:"Heat death"?

[The Real Dr John]

it is supposed to be either expand and freeze, or collapse and crunch. Maybe there are many universe centers that expand and contract repeatedly. Each super black hole going through the cycle. If so, I wonder how far apart the Universe centers are?

Re:"Heat death"?

[Yosho]

"Heat," in an atomic sense, is basically a measurement of how constrained molecules are within a structure and how rapidly they're bouncing around. "Cold" molecules are those that arelocked into a rigid structure and don't move around much. "Hot" molecules are ones that move about freely, without constraint. In that sense, the "heat death" of the universe will be when there is no more solid matter in the universe, and all of its atoms are distributed evenly, bouncing around freely.

Re: "Heat death"?

[binarylarry]

I'd wager it depends on how big our universe's turtle is.

Re:"Heat death"?

[dissy]

Cold isn't a thing. Heat is a thing, a thing we call energy. Cold is just the lack of that heat/energy thing.

Upon the heat death of the universe, the lack of heat aka cold will be quite alive and well, and isn't going anywhere. In fact it will be all there is.

It is the heat aka energy that will be so diluted and evened out it may as well not exist anymore. Thus heat death.

Re:"Heat death"?

[Anonymous Coward]

I could use a heat challenged refreshing beverage then.

Re: "Heat death"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope. "Heat" is a measure of the kinetic energy of the molecules. A lot - hot, a little - cold. Does not depend on rigidity. Superfluid Helium is, well, superfluid, yet it is as cold as it could be.

Re:"Heat death"?

[Z00L00K]

In a way it is - or a dilution death where everything evaporates into small particles unable to find each other. But it's still an open question if the universe eventually will contract and collapse into a singularity and then a new big bang occurs in a cyclic event or if it's just going to end as an empty balloon. Too little is known about the whole picture of the universe to be able to determine the fate.

In any case it's so far away in time that humankind isn't going to be around then - unless we are able to spread between the galaxies, but in that case we may even be able to find paths to the past or to other universes.

"Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done." - Robert A. Heinlein

Re: "Heat death"?

[Yosho]

Shockingly, it turns out that a metaphor intended to describe what "heat death" means in layman's terms was not 100% scientifically accurate. The responsible parties have been sacked.

Re: "Heat death"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Either way, the universe will cease to be a useful place for us to live long before any eventual even distribution of particles and energy takes place.

Re:"Heat death"?

[Wraithlyn]

It's the death of all heat.

Re:"Heat death"?

[meglon]

So.... it's the same as marriage. Got it.

Re:"Heat death"?

[RicktheBrick]

If the universe eventually dies than it implies that there was a beginning too. This would imply that there is something special about the few trillions of years between the beginning and end. If the universe and time are both infinite than I doubt that there is anything special about the few trillions of years this universe is in existence. If the universe dies than it should have died an infinite numbers of times before now. Our memory of any existence before now is lost at the time of death and rebirth. I see no other explanation for our existence.

Re: "Heat death"?

[jbengt]

No, technically, heat is that energy being transferred from one body to another. The kinetic energy of the molecules in a body is the Internal Energy. Heat transferred can do work on the body, so it does not all get translated into kinetic energy - you have to take into account the Enthalpy (Internal Energy + Pressure*Volume). Also look into Gibbs Free Energy and Helmholtz Free Energy to take into account the effect entropy has on the possibility of using that energy.

Re:"Heat death"?

[Sponge Bath]

We must organize to fight it.

Re: "Heat death"?

[sudon't]

It has to do with how many turtles there are. Do they really go all the way down? How far is that? There are still many unanswered questions.

As for the OP, think of it like this: When the heat dies, it will be very cold. Maybe "heat death" would make more sense expressed as "the death of heat".

Re:"Heat death"?

[sudon't]

I know you're right, but cold sure feels like a thing when it's -40 (C or F, your choice).

Re:"Heat death"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Technically, it's not going to be a few trillion years, but more like around 40 to 50 trillion years. Until sub-atomic decay occurs when the quantum foam itself is broken apart and stilled.

Re:"Heat death"?

[Anonymous Coward]

#galacticlivematter #solarlivesmatter #heatdeathentropyisracist

Re:"Heat death"?

[Rick in China]

I don't think you understand what I said:

Previously the common thinking was that the universe would likely go in one of two directions - endless expansion or eventual contraction, the endless expansion resulting in a "death by cold", due to entropy, there would no longer be any transference of energy between objects and everything would simply be neutral. The other being contraction, which would eventually bring everything closer and closer together - resulting in a "death by heat", where too much energy would be too close together, eventually perhaps leading to another bang/expansion.

In this story, objects, or life as we know it (or can suppose it) would cease to exist due to freezing rather than burning. Death by cold. Not death by heat. Death by lack of heat, death due to entropy.

Now, of course, there are alternative theories that break these two older molds, but...yeah.

Re:"Heat death"?

[dissy]

Ahh, now I see what you mean. Slight miscommunication I'm guessing.

The usual way it is phrased is referencing the death of the heat within the universe, not the death of the universe itself.

But from the point of view of the universe, I can see what you mean in that the universe itself will "die" from freezing. Especially compared to the alternative of a contracting universe's fate.

Of course even that follows previous thinking that the universe will remain alive and well after this time, and only the heat/energy within will be effectively dead.
But of course such thinking isn't even at the theory level for us yet, just some logical assumptions that should hold true given the options.

Or at least I personally am not willing to claim either option as a fact ;}

Re:"Heat death"?

[flopsquad]

IIRC, there are some theories where, out of the sea of nothing* that is a heat-dead universe, and on unfathomably long time scales (~10^45 years?)**, a new cosmic expansion event could happen randomly and birth a new universe. (Mumble mumble, quantum field fluctuations, symmetry breaking, mumble.)

Thus, infinite universes could be born and die, on an infinite timeline. Even if this is true, it's still pretty special to exist.

*Nothing except for virtual particle+antiparticle pairs popping in and out of existence.
**Assuming "time" really means anything in an era where there is no greater state of entropy to give time its arrow.

Plan now

[ISoldat53]

Don't put it off til the last minute.

Re:Plan now

[Nrrqshrr]

The universe obviously needs more immigrant stars to produce energy for its retirement. Think of the future!

Re:Plan now

[rbrander]

That's against the laws of nature, so they'd be illegal immigrants.

Re:Plan now

[Anonymous Coward]

This is going to screw up the Hurd development cycle.

Re:Plan now

[Tablizer]

It's okay, I have entropy insurance

There is no life in the void.

[Dutchmaan]

Looks like as time approaches infinity, the sum = 0

Just accept those immigrant stars already

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, they shine green and not white, but who fucking cares?

So what will happen to Galactic Social Security ?

[Anonymous Coward]

So what will happen to Galactic Social Security ?

Heat death denial

[polemistes]

Still there are some ignorant deniers who don't accept the unanimous scientific proof that the heat death of the universe is human made.

Re:Heat death denial

[chipschap]

No, this is how global warming is going to save the universe.

Re:Heat death denial

[reboot246]

Regardless of cause, I am sure that our benevolent government in Washington D.C. will come up with the solution to this problem. My guess is that massive tax increases and drastic lifestyle changes (for us, not them) will be involved.

Seriously, won't somebody think of the children millions of generations from now?

Shit!

[fustakrakich]

I guess I'll have to cut short that trip to Disneyland..

Re:Shit!

[tepples]

Speaking of Disney, isn't copyright the one thing that can outlast the heat death of the universe?

Re:Shit!

[fustakrakich]

It will outlast his frozen stiff... Well, it would, if he wasn't cremated...

Re:Shit!

[Tablizer]

and that means Jar Jar will be imported into the next cycle.

Re:Shit!

[drinkypoo]

Speaking of Disney, isn't copyright the one thing that can outlast the heat death of the universe?

And student loans.

Re:Shit!

[Anonymous Coward]

Speaking of Disney, isn't copyright the one thing that can outlast the heat death of the universe?

Nope. Copyrights, by law, must have a limited duration. Disney's copyright duration is forever - 1day. So, everything will enter the public domain exactly 24 hours before the universe ends.

Re:Shit!

[pellik]

Don't discount a 23 hour extension on the last day.

See also:

[Brett Buck]

Entropy

Re:See also:

[dhavleak]

http://www.multivax.com/last_q...

Re:See also:

[meta-monkey]

I was thinking http://downlode.org/Etext/nine...

Haox!

[Tablizer]

This Universe Climate Change claim is a bunch of commie bunk by commie professors trying to get gov't study handouts. The universe is perfectly fine! Just keep your guns loaded in case it wants to attack you and turn your children into cosplay space weirdos.

Re:Haox!

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. These hacks would have you believe that the universe has been dying for the last 13.8 billion years and that we all need to do our part and reduce our entropy footprint. Collectivist propoganda at its worst.

Re:Haox!

[Anonymous Coward]

I see the Republicans are already out in force with their campaign against science. If this continues, we'll have to call it a war on science like their war on women.

Re:Haox!

[Anonymous Coward]

cosplay space weirdos? like bruce jenner? The cheering they give him is the ultimate example of left wing degeneration of culture.

Re:Haox!

[thinkwaitfast]

Why has this been on the front page of google news for like the last 4 months? Even when not logged onto a gmail account in a library, it's like google thinks I care. The last time I remember hearing about Jenner was on a wheaties box back in kindergarten.

My mom bought wheaties once and I hated them. Transitively I've always hated Bruce Jenner.

Re:Haox!

[Anonymous Coward]

That'd still be one less war than the liberal war on logic.

WRONG!

[Laserfuzz]

The Universe is just becoming more energy efficient! Think Earth Hour but on a universal scale

Let there be Light

[jd.schmidt]

The final answer. Asimov, 1920 - 1992

Re:Let there be Light

[Anonymous Coward]

Insufficient data for a meaningful comment.

Re:Let there be Light

[Anonymous Coward]

Dee sub One appreciates this.

Re:Let there be Light

[Applehu Akbar]

You're thinking of "The Last Question"
http://www.multivax.com/last_q...

Re:Let there be Light

[circletimessquare]

(spoiler)

Approximation

[Egg Sniper]

Article: "The timeline for all this to come to pass is very long, hundreds of trillions of years." Or a "few". Sure. Whatever, I'll be gone either way.

Current universe probably in one benign stage of m

[Anonymous Coward]

What are this eon's pop I stars will be another eon's pop II stars; they will be chemically different; therefore their spectrum, size, temp - all that stuff - will be different than what we're seeing now generally. And those stars will crank out increasingly bizarre atomic ashes.

The survey makes sense; don't think this was huge surprise. Pop III's were mostly huge, burned quick, and blew up fast. Our current epoch may very well be the 'ideal' stability-epoch in our universal timescale, at least for stars.

Entropy will win

[Anonymous Coward]

Entropy will win. !news

Third Possible Fate

[Roger W Moore]

it is supposed to be either expand and freeze, or collapse and crunch.

Actually there is a third possibility: the big rip. The expansion of the universe is accelerating and, if this continues and the Dark Energy driving it is of the right type, then space-time might literally rip itself apart.

Re:Third Possible Fate

[someone1234]

How is that different from heat death?

Re: Third Possible Fate

[MenThal]

Heat death we might be able to fight for a bit, converting matter into energy. Big rip might just tear our molecules apart...

Re:Third Possible Fate

[justthinkit]

and a fourth.

Re:Third Possible Fate

[Roger W Moore]

How is that different from heat death?

With heat death the universe continues for ever more either continuing to expand and reaching a finite size. Nothing ever changes it just goes on forever as a dead, lifeless void empty of stars and life. With the Big Rip the expansion accelerates until space-time itself is ripped apart and the universe is replaced by something else but what we cannot say hence the ultimate fate remains unknown which seems a lot less depressing than just heat death.

Re:Third Possible Fate

[Roger W Moore]

That's just the Big Crunch with a guess as to what happens afterwards.

Re:Third Possible Fate

[Tablizer]

The Mother of all wardrobe failures.

Re:Third Possible Fate

[Anonymous Coward]

Boltzmann brains. Lots and lots and lots of Boltzmann brains.

That's OK

[Anonymous Coward]

Computers got better, so I'm sure that in 2 billion years we'll just 3D print new galaxies.

Re:That's OK

[CanadianMacFan]

Sure we'll be able to do it but the cost of the cartridges to do so will bankrupt you.

Re:That's OK

[thinkwaitfast]

Not if you can 3d print those also. I'm sure the iot will help out here also. Maybe one day we'll have 5d printers and it will make a universe of things.

Oh No! Something New to Worry about!

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh No! Something New to Worry about!

Deal with it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Tough shit. Not my problem.

My My Hey Hey

[turkeydance]

Neil Young, the physicist

DOOM!

[Anonymous Coward]

All human ambition will eventually fall to dust.

Throw your inhibitions to the wind. It doesn't matter if chasing your dreams gets you killed...you will die anyway, and so will everyone and everything else and none of it will matter in the end.

Doom is the truth that sets us free.

Re:DOOM!

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't care if it matters in the end. I care if it matters while I'm alive and aware.

Re:DOOM!

[Anonymous Coward]

IOW, YOLO, Let's get this party started!...

*looks down to see positive pregnancy test result*... Shit.

Spoiler Alert!

[Anna Merikin]

Since the metaphorical book is longer than can be read in a human lifetime, the ending is meaningless. We'll never know for sure.

Re:Spoiler Alert!

[rbrander]

Unless understanding the ending is a crucial step in physics towards new technologies that provide us with medicines or replicators or something.

Man, it would be ironic if it enabled eternal life.

Trillions of years.

[sims 2]

That's nice one less thing for us or future generations to worry about as even 1 trillion years qualifies as effectively forever.

Lets get back to things with reasonable deadlines like that pole flip every 250,000 years or so or the large solar flares that hit every 150 years or so or global warming which promises to be a serious pita within the next 100 years or so or more practical deadlines like paying your water/sewer/electric/cellphone bill. They are typically due monthly so best to keep an eye on those.

Re:Trillions of years.

[93 Escort Wagon]

Says you. After reading the article, I decided to stop paying my mortgage, water, electricity, and cell phone bills.

Re:Trillions of years.

[towermac]

Heh.

Too bad for you they are wrong. There is no heat death.

The same heat that was there before will still be there, for all time. Just more spread out. They call that entropy. Fancy pants with their fancy words..

It will never be zero, unless and until the size of the universe is infinity.

It's just a long heat slowdown. Put a coat on, and you'll be fine.

Re:Trillions of years.

[iggymanz]

And note the article said "hundreds of trillions" of years, which is two orders of magnitude bigger than mere single digit number of trillions. The universe has only been around for 0.0138 trillion years; Doom approaches, it'll only last some tens of thousands of times that long!

Re:Trillions of years.

[Anonymous Coward]

Really?, good luck trayin to get warm with you entropic spread out energy
Me.. I'm stoking logs
just in case

Re:Trillions of years.

[sims 2]

Yep like I was saying even If it was only 1 trillion years we would still have much more pressing matters to attend to.

Re:Trillions of years.

[iggymanz]

Those people also get upset when they find out the earth will be uninhabitable in 300-400 million years due to Sun's expansion. Never mind modern humans have only existed for 150,000 years at most

Relativity

[Roger W Moore]

Well it depends on how fast you are moving. Get up enough speed relative to the rest of the universe and for you the heat death of the universe could happen tomorrow...although that would require that every particle of your body to be accelerated to an energy about a trillion times higher than the LHC.

Re:Relativity

[Anonymous Coward]

Well it depends on how fast you are moving. Get up enough speed relative to the rest of the universe and for you the heat death of the universe could happen tomorrow...

Hell, no! At high speeds the distant observer sees you getting slower. But you never notice anything differrent in your frame. I thought this was established knowledge.

Re:Relativity

[Areyoukiddingme]

Time dilation isn't proven, otherwise we wouldn't have been able to see anything.

What are you babbling about? The GPS system has detailed time dilation compensation built into it. It's not only proven, it has to be accounted for in the engineering of a functioning system in worldwide use.

GPS satellites are moving at 14,000 km/hr relative to Earth's surface, a Special Relativity time dilation of 7 microseconds per day. But Earth-based clocks are deeper in the gravity well of Earth, so they suffer a General Relativity time dilation of 45 microseconds per day. The nanosecond accurate clocks on board the satellites are pre-calibrated before launch to tick more slowly than they should while on Earth, so once in orbit, they tick at a General-Relativity-time-dilation-compensated rate that then matches Earth clocks. The software still has to compensate for any additional, unpredictable drift caused by orbital variances.

Time dilation is quite real, and must be accounted for, or GPS and Galileo wouldn't work at all. Uncompensated clock error amounts to 10km on Earth per day.

Re:Relativity

[Anonymous Coward]

Time dilation isn't proven, otherwise we wouldn't have been able to see anything. Now the doppler shift is quite true, but that is not time dilation.

Time dilation has been directly observed by carrying atomic clocks from one place to another, both via planes and satellites. It has also been observed in particles via their halflife.

Then you are not moving at all. Speed is distance travelled over time.

You don't observer your own time being dilated, as your clock always appears to go the same speed. However you will observe length contraction, so the distance will have changed. As your speed increased relative to your destination, e.g. Alpha Centauri, then the distance will appear shorter by whatever observation methods you have within your frame. With 1 g acceleration, you can get to Alpha Centauri in ~2.3 years in your frame, as the distance will contract as your frame changes. To an external observer in the original frame, they would not see the distance change, but instead see your clock slow down in a completely consistent way, so it still looks like 2.3 years elapse on the ship to the external observer too.

Re:Relativity

[Roger W Moore]

At high speeds the distant observer sees you getting slower.

...and you see them getting slower too because they are moving fast relative to you. If the situation were not perfectly symmetric then you would immediately be able to tell who was moving and who was stationary and you'd have a way to define an absolute velocity. This would mean that relativity would not be relative!

Yes it is a bit weird but that far from the strangest thing to result from relativity!

Re:Relativity

[Roger W Moore]

If it takes you roughly 4 years to travel from Earth to Alpha Centaury you are traveling with the speed of light

That depends on who's clock you are using. If the person on Earth measures it as four years then yes you are correct. However if you are using the clock onboard the ship then a 4 year trip means that you are only at a fraction of light speed. The difference is that for you the distance between AC and Earth is less than 4 light years due to length contraction. Were you actually to travel at (almost) light speed the trip would take almost no time at all and, for you, AC and Earth would be almost no distance apart.

Special relativity is the most accurately tested scientific law that there has ever been. Every particle accelerator uses it - not just the LHC but the machines in the basement of hospitals to treat cancer and make medical isotopes. Cosmic rays would not exist in their observed form (muons would decay too fast) without time dilation and it has been seen using atomic clocks on Concorde. Time dilation might be an extraordinary claim but it is supported by extraordinary and overwhelming evidence.

Re: Relativity

[inasity_rules]

There is special and general relativity and both must be accounted for and are measurable. Your failure to understand does not prove your point.

Re:Relativity

[meglon]

This could be a good thing, because i definitely have a few relatives i wish weren't related. Wait... what?

Re: Relativity

[Anonymous Coward]

Distance is constant, so if time dilation was real you arrive at different speeds, but it is only the speed that the external observer measures that matters.

Time dilation and length contraction are part of the same mechanism, and so allows effects to be consistent between different frames. And there is nothing special about an external observer, as to them you are the external observer...

Re:Relativity

[GuB-42]

Do do this you don't need speed, you need acceleration, for example by orbiting close to a supermassive black hole and manage not to get ripped apart by tidal forces or vaporized by all the crap that usually surround black holes.
Speed alone would make the time go slower for you, not faster.

Re:Relativity

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretty much this.

There is quite a significant difference the further you get from Earth.

I remember seeing the guys in control of keeping the whole system in sync with each other because of those unaccounted-for changes.
It tends to have to be updated and fixed several times a day if I remember correct.

Re: Relativity

[flopsquad]

No, AC has a point. It's clear from AC's post that he recalibrated the relativistic equations to account for the fact that Earth exist as 4 - 90 degree opposite corner quadrants, but not as a 360 degree circle--4 Simultaneous Days Rotate In Same 24 Hours Of Earth, 4 Earth corners rotate 4 Time corners.

Earth is Cubic opposites, nothing as circle. Duh.

Only one thing for it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Better institute amnesty for immigrant stars from neighboring universes so we can keep our Gross PanGalactic Product increasing.

It ain't going to happen in our live time

[Anonymous Coward]

It ain't going to happen in our live time, or the live time of any human being, we'll all be like the dinosaurs before we have to worry about that one.

Sad truth is

[Anonymous Coward]

We weren't here a million years ago, and we probably won't be after the next.

The universe started dying as soon as it was born

[Anonymous Coward]

Just like everything else.

The Universe is coming to an end

[PPH]

Please log off.

We've had this figured out for a while.

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a solution to this problem...

Would you like to make a wish and become a magical girl?

Disclaimer: saving the universe from heat death may result in magical girls maturing into an eldritch horrors.

   

It started with a bang.

[Anonymous Coward]

But will end in a whimper. Brrr, I'm feeling cold.

Cosmological Expansion Comes to Mind:

[tomxor]

And what do you know: (from TFA)

The decline in galaxies’ energy output coincides with the universe’s ever-increasing rate of expansion, which is due to a mysterious, anti-gravity force referred to as dark energy.

So yeah, but no... it's just that you can't see as much of the newer stuff... ever, cos > speed of light. Not an entirely accurate headline but makes no difference i guess, the point is that cosmological expansion guarantees that everything we see will become less and less, that's before even bothering to consider start birth rate / death rate.

Re: Cosmological Expansion Comes to Mind:

[Anonymous Coward]

You have it backwards, we would see less and less older stuff, not newer stuff. It is the far away stuff that can accelerate out of view, while close, new stuff is still visible.

Re: Cosmological Expansion Comes to Mind:

[tomxor]

No, cosmological expansion is not selective, it does not only pick old stars, and nether are new stars limited to being bourn centred around our galaxy... We will see less of EVERYTHING, which means... less.

Re: Cosmological Expansion Comes to Mind:

[Anonymous Coward]

No, cosmological expansion is not selective,

No, but our observation is quite selective, due to the speed of light limit. There is a direct relationship between the age of things compared to the Big Bang and the distance away from us... and there is also a direct relationship between distance from us and expansion. Hence there is going to be a relationship between age of things and how affected they are by expansion. Determining how much the rate of star production has changed comes from comparing far away galaxies, which would be a view what the older rates were, to what we see around us, which is what the newer stuff is doing.

Such is life

[ArchieBunker]

Everything has a beginning and end. No real surprise.

The Last Question

[dhavleak]

http://www.multivax.com/last_q... There has never been a better time to read that story.

Re:The Last Question

[Anonymous Coward]

I cry every time.

Re:The Last Question

[Soylent Beige]

Illustrated version http://bato.to/read/_/188371/the-last-question_by_supreme-cream-scanlations

Re:The Last Question

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, the universe is expanding like a pregnant slut and it's gonna get really fucking cold up in here.
Then it'll either blow itself out forever, or that other bitch called gravity will set in and reboot that shit.
None of that matters, because it's not a question of whether or not you will die or when... you will.
It's a question of where this whole damn thing came from.
And nobody has, or ever will be able to answer that.
Big bang? Strings? Where the fuck did they come from...
God? Where the fuck did that dude come from...
The Force? Where the fuck did that shit come from...
The only thing for sure is that you will die.
It's why suicide is possible... because life doesn't really matter in the end.

Re:The Last Question

[dinfinity]

What a terribly shortsighted story.

I always find it striking that in every damn SciFi universe, humans somehow always stay superrelevant. Not only does our little species still exist in a highly recognizable form, it even usually plays some central role in that universe (generally filled with other highly anthropomorphic entities with strikingly similar cultures).

It is a ridiculous unfounded extrapolation of our time. Predicting human(like entitie)s in the far future is like predicting flying horse carriages.
No, individualism will become obsolete. Humans will be obsolete and 'emotion' and 'wonder' will be supplanted by pure rationalism executed by a non-organic singular or hive entity.

(also, don't get me started on a 'cosmic AC' in a heat dead universe)

Re:The Last Question

[Anonymous Coward]

No, individualism will become obsolete. Humans will be obsolete and 'emotion' and 'wonder' will be supplanted by pure rationalism executed by a non-organic singular or hive entity.

(also, don't get me started on a 'cosmic AC' in a heat dead universe)

Which happened in the story.

That Asimov sure could write.

Re:The Last Question

[Trilkk]

This was amazing. Thank you. I'd mod you up if I had points right now.

Re:The Last Question

[Anonymous Coward]

that which you refer to, is the SSE, Solid State Entity, univac, YHVH... its but one of the possible future timelines.

man could augment individual units to the point of each being processing eqivalent of such a hivemind..

man could evolve into patterns on a surface of a neutron star or a black hole...

man could evolve into Culture-style hyperspace minds...

the Human Hive idea, whether its technology based or biology based, is but one path... and not very fun one, imo :P

Re:The Last Question

[Anonymous Coward]

>I always find it striking that in every damn SciFi universe, humans somehow always stay superrelevant.

If it were otherwise, nobody would pay the author for it.

Re:The Last Question

[NicknameUnavailable]

What a terribly shortsighted story.

I always find it striking that in every damn SciFi universe, humans somehow always stay superrelevant. Not only does our little species still exist in a highly recognizable form, it even usually plays some central role in that universe (generally filled with other highly anthropomorphic entities with strikingly similar cultures).

It is a ridiculous unfounded extrapolation of our time. Predicting human(like entitie)s in the far future is like predicting flying horse carriages. No, individualism will become obsolete. Humans will be obsolete and 'emotion' and 'wonder' will be supplanted by pure rationalism executed by a non-organic singular or hive entity.

(also, don't get me started on a 'cosmic AC' in a heat dead universe)

A) It is so incredibly unlikely that out of the millions of sperm from your father you would be selected - along with him and your mother and going on back to the point where it was incredibly unlikely that the first sentient life would arise, continuing on to the point the first multicellular life would arise and on more to the point the first life would come to exist that you nor any other person has the right to call anything "unlikely." B) The story actually specifically includes individualism giving way to a hive mind. C) Entropy can and will be reversed when the matter in the universe collapses into a black hole and a new zero point energy is established - effectively creating a new "big bang" in a smaller space than we could call it today but in a space comprised of all matter in the universe all the same over a time literally longer than can be defined because relativistic effects would make it infinite from our perspective (yet it will still happen.) We're effectively falling into a bottomless pit with every moment and our existence as a whole is just a ripple from the initial push into that pit. Enjoy your life, it will happen again.

Re:The Last Question

[Anonymous Coward]

When I got to the end of that, I smiled. I can't remember the last time I did that in reaction to an author's cleverness.

Re:The Last Question

[dinfinity]

A) It is so incredibly unlikely that out of the millions of sperm from your father you would be selected - along with him and your mother and going on back to the point where it was incredibly unlikely that the first sentient life would arise, continuing on to the point the first multicellular life would arise and on more to the point the first life would come to exist that you nor any other person has the right to call anything "unlikely."

Looking back is not the same as looking ahead. It is incredibly likely that one of the millions of sperm would be selected. Which one is almost irrelevant. We're not sure yet, but we expect many of the other things you mention (excluding abiogenesis) to be quite likely in our universe.

My main point here is actually not that it is directly unlikely that humans will continue to exist, but that anorganic sentience is more likely to arise, thereby inevitably displacing humans, given enough time.

B) The story actually specifically includes individualism giving way to a hive mind

Right before the end (and reboot) of the fucking universe, after they've survived their civilization going to type IV, yes. That sounds more like a last resort than anything else.

C) Entropy can and will be reversed [...]

That is irrelevant to my position.

Just accept it. It's a mediocre shortsighted anthropocentrically arrogant crappy little story.

Re:The Last Question

[NicknameUnavailable]

Just accept it. You're a mediocre shortsighted antianthropocentrically (amusingly, "anthropocentric" has no antonyms) crappy little troll.

Re:The Last Question

[dinfinity]

As I replied to your non-AC-sibling: "Right before the end (and reboot) of the fucking universe, after they've survived their civilization going to type IV, yes. That sounds more like a last resort than anything else."

Technically, they don't even become obsolete. No, they are 'fused' to the cosmic AC, as if said cosmic AC has any fucking use for them, especially given that even in the very last moment they still don't have a fucking clue and rely on the AC for answers. It's retarded.

I don't give a fuck about who wrote it. It's shit.

Re:The Last Question

[dinfinity]

Wow.. That wasn't even clever.

Hey, look, somebody shows my reasoning to be shit. Let me pretend he's a troll so I don't have to face reality.

Re:The Last Question

[NicknameUnavailable]

Wow..That wasn't even clever.

Hey, look, somebody shows my reasoning to be shit. Let me pretend he's a troll so I don't have to face reality.

Re:The Last Question

[dinfinity]

Are you 8 years old?

Entropy

[Karmashock]

How could we maintain the universe indefinitely? All those stars burning and burning... it can't go on forever.

Hopefully by the time it matters our descendents have figured out how to avoid oblivion.

Re:Entropy

[Anonymous Coward]

How will you personally avoid oblivion? Are you into anti-aging/life extension? Seems to me that's a much closer reality than something billion of years off?

Re:Entropy

[I4ko]

Well, not quite so. By the time they know how to do it, they would know everything there is to know, hence they would have no reason to live. Most likely at that point they will be incorporeal, and would have also melded in some way so there won't be distinct personalities, and also, they would have most likely melded with the fabric of the universe, becoming the universe itself.

Re:Entropy

[Karmashock]

I don't believe life works that way.

Re:Entropy

[tompaulco]

How could we maintain the universe indefinitely?

We can't. We don't maintain the universe at all so we certainly can't do so indefinitely.

Re:Entropy

[Anonymous Coward]

But you have no proof to the contrary either.

Re: Entropy

[Anonymous Coward]

Clearly we must switch to a sustainable universe model. Only one star burning at a time, gor instance. Planets should move to the one working star until it's not viable anymore and then migrate to the next one assigned for ignition. Let's not fool ourselves: only centrally planned stellar management can save us.

Re:Entropy

[Gilgaron]

You'd need an energy source larger than the universe. Probably many fold larger. Plus more for continued maintenance, unless you could stop expansion. But who knows what would happen if you did that... perhaps a big crunch and a new big bang.

Re:Entropy

[SuiteSisterMary]

At this point, everybody you ever knew would appear to you, clapping politely, and saying 'congratulations!'

Re:Entropy

[Karmashock]

A big point here is that Special Relativity is increasingly looking shaky. I know that is heresy/crack-pottery.

But consider dark matter and dark energy.

The stars around galaxies spin with IDENTICAL angular velocity indifferent to distance. The stars near the core spin around with the SAME angular velocity as stars at the rim. That is... imagine if pluto was going around the Sun at the same rate as Mercury... EXACTLY as many rotations over a given unit of time. Precisely.

Now that's fucking weird. But that's how every star in the universe that we've seen is going around any spiral galaxy you'd like to mention.

Now to explain that... they introduce "dark matter"... aka they say there is EXACTLY enough missing mass that we're not seeing in every galaxy in the universe to give us precisely this effect. How likely does that sound? Its fucking impossible. It also means that something like 98 percent of all mass in the universe is dark matter... because that's basically how much the gravitational calculations are off by. If your theory is 98 percent off the mark... its fucking wrong.

That means there's something wrong with our understanding of gravitation.... space time... etc.

And dark energy is basically just an admission that we don't know why the universe is expanding or where the energy for that to happen is coming from. I'm not even going to deal with that. I'll stick with the dark matter.

Add to that, Quantum Mechanics doesn't line up with Special Relativity. We've been trying to unify the theories for decades and they don't match up.

The argument is always that Quantum mechanics is wrong or there is some missing theory between the two that we have to discover.

But consider if the problem is Special Relativity itself.

I know I sound insane to you now. Because this would mean Einstein was wrong. I would argue that is because I'm saying something audacious more than being actually crazy. But the proof is in the pudding, no?

So when we talk about the fate of the universe and how according to Special Relativity it must become one thing or another... I don't really credit that. I don't think Special Relativity has a clue what is going to happen at that scale.

We have so many patches and work arounds for errors in SR. All complex electronics have work arounds built into them that effectively correct for errors in SR as relates to their context.

All the communication's sats have corrections that according to SR they shouldn't need... but they do.

I think we need to take a good hard look at SR because I think we might have made some fundamental error. What that error was?... Not sure. But dark matter itself is such a huge fucking problem that the universe is basically just laughing at us. Think about that again... all the stars moving with the SAME angular velocity around the center of the spiral.

And just to underscore my point, most of the prominent scientists that predated Einstein had a very different notion of how the universe worked. There were quite a few opponents that said he was wrong. And internet famous fellows like Nikola Tesla didn't buy SR at all. Tesla didn't buy it because SR contradicts certain things about electrical fields that Tesla was very aware of... Again, to this day, we use special corrections with complex electrical devices that according to SR we shouldn't need. But we do.

Re:Entropy

[Anonymous Coward]

The stars around galaxies spin with IDENTICAL angular velocity indifferent to distance.

Look up an actual rotation curve. It is no where near identical angular velocities for all radii, let alone worthy of "IDENTICAL." It is flat, relatively speaking, not perfectly, as in flatter than expected from just visible matter. Furthermore, there is variation from galaxy to galaxy, as in some galaxies appear to have more dark matter than others, and it is not just some constant effect that is the same everywhere you pile up visible matter. There are even examples of galaxies that do come close to what you would expect without dark matter, suggesting it is possible to strip dark matter away from a galaxy, something that is hard to explain with gravity variations other effects inherent in the visible matter.

(Also, special relativity has little to say about gravity, all your beefs/issues should be about general relativity... except for the whole incorrect premise starting your post...)

Re:Entropy

[Anonymous Coward]

All the communication's sats have corrections that according to SR they shouldn't need... but they do.

SOURCE PLEASE.

After you can't find one, please explain your need to make shit up.

ps - don't try to shotgun spray a bunch of tangentially related olinks on this, as you're prone to do. It hasn't worked before, it won't work now.

Re:Entropy

[david_thornley]

Let's see. There's plenty of evidence for dark matter that isn't galactic rotation curves, like gravitational lensing and problems with the composition of the Universe. Dark matter is matter that interacts weakly if at all electromagnetically, and we're already aware of matter (neutrinos) that does that. The amount of dark matter is determined by figuring out what the mass has to be. You're very close to saying that, if I put an object into a 1-pound box, and weigh the box with object at 11 pounds, then it would be an incredible coincidence if the object turned out to weigh 10 pounds - and, also, that a theory that has the object ten times the weight of the box must be wrong.

You're also completely confusing Special and General Relativity. Quantum mechanics works just fine with Special Relativity. As far as how General Relativity describes the Universe, you're saying you don't credit it, but you obviously don't know what you're talking about it. (BTW, nobody sweats the idea of Einstein being wrong. He was almost certainly way wrong when he claimed that there are no truly random elements in quantum theory. He was a great physicist, but no physicist thinks anything is true just because Einstein said so.)

Special Relativity is an incredibly well-tested theory, and nobody's found discrepancies or holes in it. Everything works just as predicted. General Relativity is much harder to test, but it checks everything we can test. Some people find this annoying, since it's real hard to make scientific progress if you can't find problems with the current theories. The GPS satellites do have corrections for Special Relativity and General Relativity, and work just like predicted. (I think you're just making up the crap about complex electronics violating relativity - do you have something specific to claim?)

Of COURSE Einstein's predecessors had problems with Einstein's ideas as to how the Universe works. Einstein said that space and time are not distinct things, and that there is no absolute space or time, which contradicted basic assumptions of everything from Newton on. That's why we call it Einstein's theory. Poincare had worked out all the math of Special Relativity before Einstein, but didn't make the big conceptual leap. Lots of people said he was wrong, because they couldn't get their heads around it (at least at first). And, again, we see the crap about relativity contradicting observations without any supporting evidence (because there is none, of course).

Re:Entropy

[Karmashock]

hmmm... not sure if we're talking about the same thing.

If we take any one galaxy as a given example and compare it to itself... we fine that the curve is very nearly flat once you leave the closest stars. That is, the disc is generally uniform. You're saying that isn't true for all spiral galaxies... can you give me an example of where it isn't true? I've never seen that.

The big problem with the dark matter hypothesis is that it is too convenient. Its a deus ex machina solution. And the observations are too weird for it to just be some extra mass especially when it is that much extra mass distributed just "so"... I mean, even if we buy into the missing mass, explain why the mass would be distributed that way? There's nothing in the known laws of physics that would explain a distribution pattern like that. The distribution of dark matter should be equivalent to the distribution of non-dark matter. And that would lead to the galaxies behaving basically as we initially believed they would... aka like the solar system writ large. The fact that they don't is not explained by the presence of dark matter because even if there is dark matter that doesn't explain why the distribution of mass is different.

I've seen nothing that explains that.

Possibly I'm crazy or ignorant or something... but the whole thing strikes me epicycles all over again.

This comes from a layman so by all means, high hat me. But know that that is just ad hominem and will be taken as such.

Re:Entropy

[Karmashock]

Let me first make the obvious admission that I'm a layman. I've never claimed to be otherwise.

Now lets get to the issue here, so you're saying dark matter is backed up by things besides galactic rotation? Can you cite why those require dark matter? Are you saying there are transparent gravitational lenses out in the middle of the universe that bend light without giving any indication of mass big enough to do it?

Regardless, my main issue with dark matter is not the concept but what it conveniently skips over. The distribution of dark matter should match the distribution of non-dark matter. If they both respond to gravitation then dark matter should be concentrated in the core of galaxies just like the non-dark matter with the distribution of dark matter largely following the same pattern as regular matter in the disc. If it does that then the galaxies will spin faster BUT the acceleration curve would fall off the same way it does in our solar system.

The fact that it doesn't... if we assume dark matter... you're saying that the distribution of dark matter is DIFFERENT from regular matter. And that that distribution basically just HAPPENS to flatten the acceleration curve for every spiral galaxy's disc.

Think of the odds of that. that's like rolling a zillion dice and having them all land on six. I don't buy it.

My issue is not the dark matter itself. Its the distribution of dark matter that I find unsupportable. Why is dark matter distributed that way if it exists? I know of no physical law that would cause regular matter to distribute with most of the mass in the core of the galaxy and yet have dark matter distribute with a disproportionate amount of mass in the disc. Explain it.

Am I laymen? Sure. But that doesn't invalidate the question or the position unless ad hominem has suddenly become a valid rebuttal.

Re:Entropy

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, just look up any rotation curve, whether from Google, Wikipedia, or here is an example page that includes a summary plot of many curves, or another intro page that includes many examples. There are many papers measuring or refining curves of a great variety of galaxies. Some are close to flat, some are sloping in either direction, most show a fair amount of structure, and none are exactly flat.

Also, from your previous post:

The stars near the core spin around with the SAME angular velocity as stars at the rim.

They do not have the same angular velocity, it is not like a rigid rotation. "Flat" rotation curves are those that have the same linear velocity with radius, so there is still a slow down in angular velocity with radius, just not as fast as expected from visible matter.

mean, even if we buy into the missing mass, explain why the mass would be distributed that way? There's nothing in the known laws of physics that would explain a distribution pattern like that

Read up on the cold dark matter theory, as there is an expectation a halo would form that would give a flat rotation curve. The flat part is easy, but the cusp near the center of the curve is the hard part. Considering this is well written about, and often in any non-trivial intro to the subject, I'm not going to copy-paste or paraphrase it here.

The distribution of dark matter should be equivalent to the distribution of non-dark matter.

Not in the slightest. If the interaction between dark matter and electromagnetism is weak or non-existent, then there is no easy way for dark matter to coalesce or form dense objects. For things like dense clouds, stars, and planets to form, you need electromagnetism to prevent atoms from passing through each other, to provide a quick way to exchange energy between particles so they will thermalize. Without that, particles will just mostly pass through each other, even with gravitational interactions, and you end up with everything in an overlapping orbit and very little pressure or force to cause it to settle toward the center.

I've seen nothing that explains that.

Look up course notes from an intro astronomy course or even Wikipedia. If you haven't seen that explanation yet, then you've not really looked or are unfortunately now good at finding decent sources.

Re:Entropy

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you saying there are transparent gravitational lenses out in the middle of the universe that bend light without giving any indication of mass big enough to do it?

Yes, there are gravitational lenses associated with galaxy clusters, but not with any actual galaxy and matching how dark matter would be predicted to behave on such scales. There are also gravitational lenses associated with galaxy collisions but away from the two galaxies that match predictions of how dark matter can be stripped or flung out of a galaxy in such collisions.

Re:Entropy

[Karmashock]

As to lensing near galaxies, that doesn't prove dark matter.

What that proves is a distortion in space time or something of that nature near galaxies. Now the only thing we know of that can do that IS matter. So when we see that we say "clearly matter". The problem with that is that the way the galaxies are behaving suggests there might be something else going on.

The dark matter concept is a deus ex machina solution. You don't actually know what is going on there. And if it is dark matter, you then need to explain why the dark matter is distributed differently from the regular matter. Actions have equal and opposite reactions, no? So if the dark matter is acting on the stars and bending light... then the matter there should be acting on the dark matter in turn. And that would incline the dark matter to concentrate in the core of the galaxy and then distribute itself throughout the disc in roughly the same way that the conventional matter is distributed. And if it does that... and it must under existing theory... then the acceleration curves would be the same thing we see in the solar system.

The ONLY way dark matter can do what you want it to do is if its distribution doesn't follow the same rules as regular matter. And given that both of them apparently respond to gravity... dark matter MUST respond like regular matter in regards to gravity.

Opposing theories? I have them of course but I'm not arrogant enough to think any of them have merit without evidence. My only observation here is that "dark matter" doesn't make sense because it couldn't be distributed that way if it responds to gravity.

Re:Entropy

[Anonymous Coward]

What that proves is a distortion in space time or something of that nature near galaxies. .

No, quite the opposite, since most galaxies only lens right around them, not in the empty space way off to one side. It is only galaxies that have been in collisions that can do the lensing way off to one side. And that doesn't address clusters (which are mostly quite empty space) and filaments of dark matter that have been mapped out by lensing, and also closely follow previous predictions about distribution of dark matter.

The ONLY way dark matter can do what you want it to do is if its distribution doesn't follow the same rules as regular matter. And given that both of them apparently respond to gravity... dark matter MUST respond like regular matter in regards to gravity.

Yes, dark matter should not be expected to follow the same distribution, because the distribution of regular matter depends heavily on its ability to collide and interact through electromagnetism (even if just from cooling from radiation). This was already explained above in another comment, and I didn't see the need to repeat it again.

Re:Entropy

[Karmashock]

hmmm... The lensing thing I'm going to put a pin in and skip over to what I feel is the critical issue...

The distribution. Now you're saying that because dark matter doesn't react electromagetically... it doesn't fall into gravity wells? That makes no sense. To the contrary it is electromagnetic reactions that tends to keep gas etc from falling into gravity wells. What inflates stars and keeps the mass from collapsing into a singularity?

EM radiation.

Okay... so your dark matter doesn't react with the repulsive force of EM but does react with the attractive force of gravity... and you think this will cause dark matter to NOT collapse into existing matter pockets or form its own singularities?

How does that make sense?

If DM is applying an attractive force by gravity then it is likewise being PULLED just as it pulls. And that means its going to fall into gravity wells... and since it doesn't react with EM... there is nothing to stop it from just collapsing into a dark matter blackhole.

Frankly this "it doesn't react with EM" concept poses more problems than it solves. I think you'd do better with the "dark matter is just regular matter we haven't detected". Saying it is a totally different type of matter that doesn't react with EM makes it even more improbable that it would have this distribution pattern you want.

And even if it were just regular undetected matter... the distribution pattern is still implausible.

And let me just add another problem with dark matter.

Drag. If Dark matter is basically everywhere then that means stars are PLOWING into it as they orbit the galactic center. That would have an effect on stars not unlike as satellite scrapping the top of earth's atmosphere... it would slow down the stars can cause them to fall into the galactic core.

But that's just icing on the cake. The distribution is the cake.

Re:Entropy

[david_thornley]

Now you're asking good questions.

Yes, there are transparent gravitational lenses out there that bend light without giving any indication of mass big enough to do it, or at least not in the right place. The primary example is probably the Bullet Cluster. We can tell where the visible mass is in that cluster, and we can tell where the main mass is. They aren't the same.

The distributions don't match because they behave differently. If two pieces of matter run into each other, they change velocities. They may clump together. If they're in a gravity well, they're likely to lose their orbital or escape velocity and wind up deeper in the well. If two pieces of dark matter run into each other, they apparently don't interact significantly. This means that it's a lot harder for them to lose orbital or escape velocity, and they do not tend to concentrate in the core.

If a chunk of matter is coming towards the center of the Earth at high velocity, it crashes into the Earth. If a chunk of dark matter (if it can come in a big enough size to be a chunk) is doing that, it goes through the Earth, picking up speed as it falls, and then shoots out the other side.

You also seem to be getting the line of reasoning backwards. We can tell, by rotation curves, about how much mass is in a galaxy. We can tell, by more complicated reasoning, that there isn't that much normal matter in a galaxy. We figure that either there's matter we can't detect, or that there's some mistake in our understanding of gravity. We figure that rotation curves show the distribution of this dark matter isn't the same as the visible matter.

At that point, we have two primary hypotheses: that there is such a thing as dark matter with different properties, or that the laws of gravity need to be modified. (I suppose there's also the hypothesis that there's more normal matter than we think, but it turns out that, while we may well be missing some, it isn't nearly enough.) This being science, people try testing these hypotheses.

If there's enough dark matter in galaxies to make them behave as they do, there's enough to form gravitational lenses, so it makes sense to look for such lensing in places where we know there's not enough normal matter, and we find it. This is consistent with dark matter, and not with rewriting the laws of gravity. (From what I've read, we can rewrite gravity to account for galactic rotation curves, but it doesn't work for the lensing.) Somebody notices that the best models of the Big Bang predict that there's less normal matter than there needs to be, and that the dark matter hypothesis predicts that neatly. People look at the distribution curves of dark matter in the galaxy, and note that it seems to be consistent with the idea that it doesn't interact with itself.

That's how good scientific theories are born. People notice discrepancies between theory and observation, and toss out ideas. Some of these ideas explain only the particular discrepancy they're made for, and not anything else. Other ideas explain not only that discrepancy, but others, and make predictions that turn out to be true. Dark matter is looking like a fairly simple explanation for a variety of discrepancies.

Compare the photon theory of light. In the 1900s, everybody knew light was waves, and therefore couldn't be particles. They applied the best theory of the time to black-body radiation, and found it completely wrong. We have a discrepancy. Max Planck figures that, if light comes in little packets, with the amount of energy in each packet depending on frequency, that the black-body radiation comes out right. That's something of a curiosity. Einstein notes that Planck's little packet theory explains the photoelectric effect nicely (that's the work that got him his Nobel Prize, relativity being far too controversial). Photons go on to explain more things, and people make predictions based on this photon idea.

Re:Entropy

[Anonymous Coward]

It's pretty obvious from the comments here that you are way, way out of your depth and have no idea what you're talking about. But really, if you think you've falsified current theories about dark matter, write up your argument and submit it to a physics journal. Or, you don't even need to do that, you can submit to archiv or some other preprint repository. That way, more people can review your ideas and you can get more thorough feedback.

Re:Entropy

[Anonymous Coward]

What happens when you drop an particle that doesn't interact electromagnetically into a gravity well, even say Earth's? It falls to the center, then what? There is nothing to stop it from going out the other side and back up to an altitude that it originally started at. Without some interaction to transfer away energy and momentum, that particle will forever oscillate, i.e. an orbit.

It is like asking why don't the planets all collapse onto the Sun: because they have momentum and energy that is conserved. You need a mechanism that removes that. For a large cloud of gas, the atoms and/or charge particles will interact, and collide with each other through electromagnetism. Even then it is very non-trivial, and you would need effects like the magneto-rotation instability just to allow momentum to be transferred in an accretion disk at a reasonable rate. There is a lot written on this topic for just regular matter, both dust and for plasma.

Even just the ability to emit EM waves when accelerating can allow for a cloud of accelerating/orbiting charged particles to lose energy, which would not be available to DM. Or the ability to form a thermal distribution from collisions can make a huge difference, because then you have a tail population that goes fast and can leave a gravity well, evaporating energy from the particles still in the well.

There would still be some interaction between particles, as you would have the equivalent of gravitational sling shots. But the density of particles, and their small mass each, would make this a very, very weak process that takes a long time to change. If, as already suggested, you looked at notes from an astronomy course, you can find calculations of the timescale for dark matter to lose energy and momentum through gravity alone, and it is much longer than the current estimated age of the universe. The effect is way too slow to matter for current distributions.

Saying it is a totally different type of matter that doesn't react with EM makes it even more improbable that it would have this distribution pattern you want.

Just saying it is more improbable doesn't make it so, especially if you're just going from a gut reaction and are missing a lot of background as it seems. If you would look at intro-level material, you can find calculations showing how you get a halo distribution that gives flat-ish rotation curves. As already said, that is the easy part, and the cusp-problem at the center, where it is not flat, is the hard problem.

Drag. If Dark matter is basically everywhere then that means stars are PLOWING into it as they orbit the galactic center. That would have an effect on stars not unlike as satellite scrapping the top of earth's atmosphere... it would slow down the stars can cause them to fall into the galactic core.

Atmospheric drag is an electromagnetic interaction...

Re:Entropy

[Anonymous Coward]

If you wanted to remain anonymous, you should have written a shorter comment, shithead.

Re:Entropy

[Karmashock]

Alright, so I didn't consider the EM thing meaning stuff would just fly out the other side. But even then, do the distribution patterns of mass make any sense?

And considering that we're admitting the existence of space time AND theorizing an ever present STUFF that is flowing through us at all times... is this model the best model?

Sometimes when you get all these corrections I think it pays to step back and consider if we didn't make a false assumption earlier on.

Possibly there is a better model that explains all of this rather than improbable dark matter.

Re:Entropy

[Karmashock]

The bullet cluster is an odd citation... I know it is used to prove dark matter but the actual evidence doesn't look compelling to me.

Could we go through that?

As to premises... my understanding is that if the speed of light is variable that could also explain a lot of this stuff.

As to the orbital characteristics of dark matter. We're talking about something that is akin to a perfect pendulum? It falls into wells... fires out the other side... rinse repeat... forever? I understand the concept, I just think it is a convenient fig leaf.

We've never actually detected it. We find things that can be explained by its existence but that's not the same thing.

Look, I am a layman... I know it. But I can think about this stuff as much as anyone... assign whatever credibility you like to the opinions but I frankly think I'm more intellectual to have opinions and think about it than those that simply memorize the theory and repeat.

Re:Entropy

[Anonymous Coward]

But I can think about this stuff as much as anyone...

Sure, you can spend as much time thinking about it as anyone, but that doesn't mean you can think about it as well as anyone. It is fine to try to achieve a superficial layman's understanding of a complex subject, of course, but that generally doesn't give you the perspective needed to think very deeply about something like this.

...I frankly think I'm more intellectual to have opinions and think about it...

Having strong opinions about things you don't understand is not very "intellectual," actually. It's the same thing evolution denialists do all the time -- some aspect of their very limited grasp of the theory doesn't make sense to them, so they declare the theory must be wrong. Thinking about things is always good. It's also good to recognize the limitations of your own knowledge and abilities and recognize that true experts might see things that you cannot.

Re:Entropy

[Karmashock]

Who said I have strong opinions about it?

I didn't. And what am I going to do about it? It doesn't hurt you or anything else whatever I believe about dark matter.

And the notion that if you just nod and bow you're ahead of the curve... I reject it. I might not know what I'm talking about but at least I'm thinking about it. Which is more than most people can say for themselves.

I'm not a believer in the old Catholic Church system where the priest tells people what is good and evil and the peasants kneel and bow.

That's not who I am. I'm going to read the book myself and have my own thoughts about it. And if that bothers you... Tough shit.

Re:Entropy

[Anonymous Coward]

And the notion that if you just nod and bow you're ahead of the curve... I reject it.

What does that even mean? I have no idea what you're talking about. Where did anyone suggest that if you "nod and bow" (to whom?) that you'd be "ahead of the curve" (what curve?)?

I might not know what I'm talking about..

We're in agreement there. :D

I'm going to read the book myself and have my own thoughts about it. And if that bothers you... Tough shit.

No, that doesn't bother me at all. My point was that you haven't read the book -- you have no idea what you're talking about here and you are obviously way out of your depth. So, by all means, go learn theoretical physics and astronomy -- i.e., "read the book" yourself. Until then, having opinions about things you don't understand is no intellectual achievement.

Re:Entropy

[Karmashock]

You've read the words but not understood the meaning. We have a communication failure.

Re:Entropy

[Anonymous Coward]

But even then, do the distribution patterns of mass make any sense?

This has been addressed several times...

theorizing an ever present STUFF that is flowing through us at all times

We've already had experimental evidence of stuff that is flowing through us all the time with neutrinos, so the concept is not without precedent.

is this model the best model?

Even many of the scientists working on alternative gravity models will still say so, as alternative gravity models can often only explain one or two of the several things dark matter addresses very neatly. Additionally, the gravity models involve usually an arbitrary parameter that has to be fit to observation, such as a distance where gravity suddenly changes character.

Possibly there is a better model that explains all of this rather than improbable dark matter.

For every theory or idea in science, there is the possibility a better model exists. With dark matter, it is being actively explored, with multiple research groups trying to develop alternative gravity theories, however they all have some serious issues that come down to disagreeing with observation in some way and/or include an arbitrary factor that is tuned at least as much as dark matter models.

And again, just because you stick the word "improbable" in there doesn't make it so, especially considering how difficult it is to evaluate probability of models against things we don't yet know given thinks we do know, and you seem to still be missing out a lot of the things we do know.

Re:Entropy

[Anonymous Coward]

But I can think about this stuff as much as anyone.

The issue is not rote repeating of leading theory, but the missing the whole basis of why said theory was developed and continues to be supported. If you are missing out on the premises, the big and important observations that have lead to a given theory, and some of the basic calculations that show what predictions that theory makes, then you can't think about this stuff as much as anyone with actual experience. At best, you can think a lot about a straw man version of the theory.

And this is a topic that is well written about, with a lot of free information already available out there on the internet at an academic, but introductory level intended for students. It is good to ask questions, but the problem comes what some people do with those questions. Some just never look for answers, and think that concludes their thinking on the topic. Others ask to be spoon fed answers, assuming people with redundantly try to rewrite what is already out there. And some, unfortunately very few, actively try to find answers themselves with easily available sources and tools. The former two amount to an appearance of some combo of laziness and ego that make it look pointless to even discuss a topic. Because if a person can't even care to read something at the level of a Wikipedia article on a topic before trying to espouse their own ideas and problems in detail, why should someone expect them to actually read or care about any actual information about the topic...

Re:Entropy

[Anonymous Coward]

You've read the words but not understood the meaning. We have a communication failure.

What was your first clue? When I told you, "I have no idea what you're talking about?" Now, do you care to elaborate on what you meant?

Either way, you know my position: You're not the emboldened, free-thinking peasant casting off the chains of theocratic control. No, you're more like the evolution denialist who congratulates him/herself after finding "flaws" in a theory he/she barely understands. It's good to be curious, interested in thinking about different ideas, and all of that. But when you obviously lack the background needed to understand a scientific theory or hypothesis at anything more than a superficial level, it's pretty ridiculous to boast that you're "more intellectual" because you have opinions about something you don't understand.

Re:Entropy

[Karmashock]

Neutrinos are dark matter or not?

As to models being fit to observations... well that's a hypocritical thing to say given that the default theory of the day has lots of "constants" built into it to fit things into place and then the mass is a variable you always fit to the situation.

Why is it okay in one model to do that and not okay in another? I mean you're only inferring the dark matter in the first place because your observations weren't lining up.

And any rival theory has the problem that its never going to be as deep... even if the existing theory is wrong. How much work has been done on GR and SR? You can't compete with the sheer volumes of text written about it. So saying "your theory isn't as well flushed out" isn't really fair nor does it mean anything is right or wrong.

As to me sticking the word improbable into things... well... maybe we have different definitions of what that means. Would you mind saying what you find to be improbable and then we can look at the basis of that opinion and see where our definitions differ?

Re:Entropy

[Anonymous Coward]

Neutrinos are dark matter or not?

They've been ruled out as a candidate for dark matter, unless one of the sterile neutrino theories was true allowing for a fourth kind of neutrino that is harder to detect (but those models have been essentially ruled out by one recent experiment, and it is a matter of just seeing if other experiments confirm those models are wrong). The point is you took issue with theorizing stuff flows through us all the time, except that is already an existing, well tested concept in physics already.

Why is it okay in one model to do that and not okay in another?

I never said it is not okay, just that it factors into relative comparisons. In part the point is to counter the lot of people around loudly exclaim that declaring alternative gravity theories will save us from fudge factors, when they are built on arbitrary factors themselves. However, the gravity theories are currently all based on factors fit to single or small number of observations, as in you can make it work to explain rotation curves, or lensing, or cluster structure, or CMB structure, etc., but only one at a time by refitting them. Dark matter fits all of these concurrently. There is a big difference between what some of the gravity theories do, by fixing observation A and getting value x, and fitting observation B and getting whereas dark matter can independently fit observation A, B, C... and get the same value x every time. That is the very nature of how science works, formulating an idea, and then testing it in different ways.

So saying "your theory isn't as well flushed out" isn't really fair nor does it mean anything is right or wrong.

That isn't what I said. I did say that alternative gravity theories fail to explain everything dark matter does.... as in they tried to apply it to those problems and get the wrong answer, not that people haven't taken the time to flesh it out.

. Would you mind saying what you find to be improbable

The probability of theories is not an easy subject to approach, especially say in the case where you have two competing theories that can match observations, as opposed to the easier case where you need to assume some sort of mistake was made in an observation (seriously a lot of stuff written about this philosophy of science, there is no easy way to assign probabilities to open-ended inductive reasoning, even Bayesian methods require a lot of assumptions). But that is moot, because regardless of an exact definition, evaluating the probability of a theory should at least require some actual knowledge of the subject, knowing what it says, what observations exist, etc.

I don't think I can continue this, as I'm not seeing any hope that this conversation will fundamentally change. I am spending more than half of my words explaining stuff that has already been explained many times before. If you actually cared about the subject, you could have already read up on it in less time than it would have taken you to write these comments. This isn't like asking for help on an obscure error message or giving an opinion on an uncommon algorithm, but instead like trying to have some one piecemeal ask to explain something well spelled out like how html or tcp/ip works. It also doesn't help that other asshole-ish AC(s) are now posting with a similar style too.

Re:Entropy

[Karmashock]

As to neutrinos not being dark matter... okay, I'm just confirming that we haven't actually found any of it yet... like touched it or seen it at anything short of galactic distances... and only by inference.

As to alternative gravity and fudge factors, I'm merely pointing out that there is no superiority there. On that basis you'd be on equal terms with other theories.

As to the difference between flushed out and wrong answers... I think we could agree that there is disproportionate energy put into the standard model and as such it will be able to answer more questions off the cuff than other theories. I would argue that if you had put as much energy into other theories as you have into the standard model they would have 'answers' for all these things. Would they be better answers than dark matter? Possibly not. But would they be worse? Also possibly not.

Consider that you've added a lot of extra particles into the standard model that have never actually been detected. And even so there are serious problems.

I believe the standard model has been able to describe about 5 percent of the observable universe. That is... 5 percent is conventional matter and energy... about 25 percent is dark matter... and 70 percent is dark energy. Now, if your system describes 5 percent of the observable universe while the remaining 95 percent is "stuff we don't understand" then I don't understand why there is such a high degree of confidence in the system.

There is also a big difference between coming up with a model that describes the way a system acts and actually what the system is. Things like string theory etc appear to be mostly mathematical models that describe certain things without actually representing them in fact. I believe on occasion this distinction is not observed or forgotten and that can be dangerous.

As to the improbability of theories, I think you have a point in any situation where things are murky and you don't really know what is going on... and the thing you're proposing has some precedent. Arguably Dark Matter qualifies for all of that. I think we'd have to acknowledge that we could invent improbable theories for things. God for example. You could answer any scientific question with "god". And that's unsatisfying and improbable in a lot of cases for a lot of reasons.... if not in all cases for even more reasons.

So the defense of the probability of dark matter is first that we're dealing with something that we really don't get. We're seeing huge deviations in orbits and the only thing we know of that can distort gravity is matter... and the nature of the distortion requires very weird matter that we have not yet found. That said, you pointed out... there are neutrinos and if they exist maybe something that are to neutrinos what neutrinos are to more conventional matter exists.

I get it. I'd just like to see more questioning of fundamental assumptions. It shouldn't escape your notice that we are now arguing both that there is a space-time and that it is filled with an ever present flow of matter that is flowing through us at all times transparently. This is sounding to some extent like a return to the whole aether thing. Now I know the aether was disproven... but the nature of all these "corrections" all seem to basically add it back in... in various ways. Not in all obviously. But that seems suspicious to me.

I'm sure I sound like a crack pot or an idiot or something... Unfortunate if that's all I am to people that know more on the issue. I come from a place of genuine interest and genuine curiosity and genuine intellectual integrity. Ignorant? I freely admit it. But I would argue that is my only real flaw here. And it is possible that crippling though my deficiency is... there may be other people that are not ignorant but who possibly lack the courage to wipe the chalkboard clean... and build a new theory from the ground up with all observed data.

A unified theory has eluded physicists because the macro theories do not play nice with the nano theories.

Re:So what will happen to Galactic Social Security

[k6mfw]

It will be privatized and everything will be perfect!

Man made

[p51d007]

Global warming, no doubt.

Time to panic?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, is it time to panic yet, putting on your hair shirt, taking up a placard, and crying "The end is nigh!"? :-) Or just go with the motto from the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy - Don't Panic!

Doubtless there will be a major kerfuffle over this announcement, with stupid stuff being spouted by the illiterati.

Good.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't really give a fuck what happens after I die. It'll be irrelevant, because I'll be fucking *dead*. So as long as "climate change" or "over population" (neither of which are actual legitimate concerns int he near future) don't kill us in the next thirty years, I don't give a fuuuck. On the other hand, something kind of warms my heart about knowing the universe is ultimately doomed.

Re:Good.

[Anonymous Coward]

Spot the poster that doesn't have children, and can't even fathom having grandchildren.

Kinda the Point

[Anonymous Coward]

There were originally lots of big, hot stars, but they only had H, He, and a bit of Li, so no planets. Second & Third-generation stars like Sol have "metals" (the entire rest of the periodic table), so planets and all the rest. The original universe was bright but boring. It's the old argument about quantity vs. quality.

Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

...looks like I picked the wrong day to stop sniffing glue!

Just gonna put this here ...

[Anonymous Coward]

... http://kk.org/thetechnium/there-aint-no-h-1/ ... because Life, uh, finds a way.

Holy crap! We're in trouble!

[Chas]

In a few billion years, we're fucked!

Doctor Who

[Anonymous Coward]

If Doctor Who taught me anything, is that humans will still be there at the end of the universe.

Wait...

[WSOGMM]

what about another big bang sized cosmic quantum fluctuation?

ehhhh, forget it... it's probably really unlikely

Re:Wait...

[WSOGMM]

oh... and

last post!!

heheheh, suckers

Unix epoch

[thisisauniqueid]

Latest predictions are that the heat death of the universe will occur at 2^64-1 seconds after the Unix epoch.

Nice theory

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice theory but we are looking through a little hole in time over huge distances and we are doing this for a really short time.
It could just be that what we see now, is not the norm. It could just be that most galaxies we see now are in a fase on which few start are formed. I think we need a more samples over a huge period of time to really prove this theory.

Tell us straight

[LesFerg]

Don't try to soften the blow... just tell us... how many months does the universe have left?

Get off my lawn...

[hyades1]

"Newer galaxies are simply putting out less energy than galaxies did in the past..."

Just like them young kids today, by dammit! Always settin' around and playin' with them tabulets and why-fie-fo-fummery and smart phones smaller'n yer pecker after a dip in the stream.

A dumb phone that just set there polite-like and rang 'til you answered or hit it with yer shoe was always good enough for me.

Hydrogen

[Anonymous Coward]

It makes sense actually. There is only so much hydrogen in the universe created by the big bang. Once it's all burned up, it's gone.

universe dying

[Anonymous Coward]

Its not like the universe dying is going to matter to the noobs here on slashdot lol ur all going to be dead before the Trillion years are finished anyways lol

HOWEVER.... if the universe was dying and the end was coming in about 5 years time THEN there would be a REAL ISSUE to bitch and troll about ROFL

Universe Not "producing" energy

[Anonymous Coward]

The amount of energy in the universe is fixed. Energy is neither created nor destroyed; it simply changes form.

The Universe does not produce energy. However, the overall entropy of the universe is always increasing, so this article is really not news for anyone who has a kindergarten understanding of the Laws of Thermodynamics.

LHC will do us in first

[Anonymous Coward]

The LHC will likely kill us in the next couple of years at the most anyway. So nothing to worry about, we will do ourselves in long before then.

Universal non being talking at you here.

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing dies, nothing.
A change of state is all.
Everything is composed of what it is not.
Which means it isn't
But not ain't
Besides, gravity is a fiction by some guy that got a concussion from an apple.
Isn't it?

And they said global warming was real!

[ferro lad]

They'll need to factor this into their calculations now...

This is to be expected

[Falconnan]

First, there is still plenty of hydrogen and helium to build stars. However, this makes sense. It is commonly believed that the first generation of stars had a relatively high number of hypergiants, which burn at a rate millions of times the speed of the more common red dwarf. Frankly, this just means that as the universe is getting older the number of high mass stars is diminishing. The number of lower-mass dwarf stars may or may not be increasing, which actually extends the length of time before heat death as opposed to if it did not happen. I choose to not panic over our impending doom.

It shouldn't bother me

[Anonymous Coward]

But it really does. The thought of it all just ending sometime isn't nice.

feels bad man

I4ko: Unlike you he can operate computers

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject: Meet xenotransplant -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...

* :)

(How come he says my program's good & works for him just fine?)

APK

P.S.=> Quotes in that regard - From yourself first, & then xenotransplant too:

"when will you write an application that actually works?" - by I4ko (695382) on Monday August 10, 2015 @04:10PM (#50287527) FROM -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...

It does & very well, better than ANY of its kind & why's xenotransplant say otherwise here then?

"his hosts program is actually pretty good" - by xenotransplant (4179011) on Monday August 10, 2015 @03:34PM (#50287195) FROM -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... & post parent to it also

Well??

Il4ko, you need to learn how to operate a computer (get a faster one too - the program completes in 10-15 minutes here on a Core I7 4790k)... apk

I4ko: Unlike you he can operate computers

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject: Meet xenotransplant -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...

* :)

(How come he says my program's good & works for him just fine?)

APK

P.S.=> Quotes in that regard - From yourself first, & then xenotransplant too:

"when will you write an application that actually works?" - by I4ko (695382) on Monday August 10, 2015 @04:10PM (#50287527) FROM -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...

It does & very well, better than ANY of its kind & why's xenotransplant say otherwise here then?

"his hosts program is actually pretty good" - by xenotransplant (4179011) on Monday August 10, 2015 @03:34PM (#50287195) FROM -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... & post parent to it also

Well??

Il4ko, you need to learn how to operate a computer (get a faster one too - the program completes in 10-15 minutes here on a Core I7 4790k)... apk

Home loan

[Anonymous Coward]

This has helped me choose a 25 yr home loan over 30 yr loan