Jump to content

Talk:Timeline of the far future/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5
For a July 2005 discussion to delete this article see: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/14th millenium AD and beyond

References

I am recovering the references wrongly dismissed as spam. I initially rejected all of these astronomical events because the standard equations used to generate them, such as those in Astronomical Algorithms by Jean Meeus, are invalid beyond about the year 6000, especially when the moon is involved. But after reading Simultaneous transits of Mercury and Venus I was reassured that the author, Marco Peuschel, was aware of the limitations of the "simple" computing methods and used methods that were reasonably accurate in this future realm. Of prime importance was the collaboration of Meeus and Vitagliano in writing the scholarly paper Simultaneous Transits. Thus these links are necessary in accordance with Wikipedia:Verifiability and are bona fide references. However, the original number of links was excessive, so I am reducing them to the minimum needed, and placing them in a References section (not in an External links section). — Joe Kress 6 July 2005 22:01 (UTC)

Fine by me (I was the one who deleted them), and I'm sorry I didn't had the idea to do just so. Well... I can't understand German so I couldn't check its quality but thats no excuse. --Nabla 2005-07-07 04:01:26 (UTC)
PS: I think there is no need to say that «These are true references, not just tangentially related external links.». At I would believe they are references since they are properly placed as such. --Nabla 2005-07-07 04:04:45 (UTC)

I added the reference qualifier because I was concerned that someone may change these references to external links, but I can probably prevent that as long as I monitor it. I do not like to include foreign language references, except when they are the only ones available. But the article by Meeus and Vitagliano is in English, and is not too technical. — Joe Kress 7 July 2005 05:28 (UTC)

I understood that. But now I think they are just perfect! -Nabla 2005-07-07 16:14:40 (UTC)

Cosmological events

How about

5,000,000,000 Earth's present orbit expected to be swallowed by Sun. ??????? Majority of stars extinguished. ??????? Protons decay....

etc. 03:09, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

and dont forget about the fate of the moon, and other of earth's satelites!!! just sayin... Masterhand10(Talk)(Contributions) 04:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

um?

Is there an outlet somewhere for people who don't beleive in this sort of thing? I mean the idea that the sun will expand, and star sa dn other stuff, is based on the ridiculous notion that the universe is billions of years old, some people know better that to take that kind of crackpot bull at face value--~~--03:26, 1 August 2005 (UTC)~

  • What are you talking about?
The outlet for that can be found at http://chat.aol.com/  freshgavin TALK   06:31, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

You must be one of those believing that God created everything last week? Norum (talk) 00:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I must agree, this doesn't sound like crap.--207.68.234.177 (talk) 21:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

hahaha. to answer your question...NO - there is NO accepted outlet for your religious jargon. good riddance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.170.206.89 (talk • contribs) 07:41, June 4, 2010

All of you, chill out. There's a disclaimer on the page anyway. And an "outlet" is unecessary. This is an encyclopedia that includes articles that provide information on theories, ideas, proven facts, and people. Similarly, the hostility is unecessary. People can think what they wish. Some religions do teach that the universe began with a Big Bang and is expanding, some don't. But this article is for helping people learn about beliefs about the universe for their own personal purposes or for educational purposes. Not to offer "knowledge." Because, for those of you who get what I mean, what is certainty? And therefore what is knowledge? So cut the nonsense and focus on bettering the article itself, not criticising it or its critics or having the eternal science vs. theology vs. scientific theology argument. It gets us nowhere, but distracts from the basic errors throughout the site. At least write some argument for the correct usage of the semi-colon. --DMP47 (talk) 01:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

End of the world

The end of the world is in the year 6,000,000,000? I had better get my will in order...! The "end of the world" Will NEVER happen. Sorry, I couldn't resist. BevanFindlay 03:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't bother with your will. The paper it's written on shall be consumed in an instant by the intolerable heat of the ever-expanding and hellish furnace that used to be our beloved sun. And don't expect the ozone layer to save your will, for it too will be consumed as a trifle. On the plus side, you won't have to pay for a cremation.  ;->

--L. 19:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)  — [Unsigned comment added by 69.17.65.50 (talk • contribs).]

I'm sure paying for your cremation is the last thing on all dead peoples minds.
Tommyhaych 11:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  1. ~700,000,000 (seven hundred million): The Earth's oceans start to evaporate and the Earth becomes uninhabitable. [1] Future civilization may avoid this by using advanced technology to manually move the Earth further away from the Sun (or entirely leave Earth altogether in a mass exodus to other habitable planets or on space colonies).
  2. ~3,000,000,000 (three billion): The Andromeda Galaxy and our Milky Way Galaxy are predicted to collide (they may merge and become one larger galaxy, but only a small percentage of stars will actually collide with other stars mostly because of the vastness of space).
  3. ~5,000,000,000 (five billion): The Sun becomes a red giant and all life on Earth, possibly Earth itself, is destroyed, barring unforeseen circumstances, unless advanced technology can prevent this.
  4. ~7,000,000,000 (seven billion): The Sun becomes a white dwarf about the size of the Earth.
  5. ~1,000,000,000,000 (one trillion): The Sun becomes a black dwarf.
  6. ~1,000,000,000,000,000 (one quadrillion): The Big Freeze according to many cosmologists. Intelligent life existing then may flee to other universes, as suggested by the physicist Michio Kaku.

That blew....now I am sad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.252.245.183 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 5 July 2006

Andromeda and Milky Way collision

Added the scientific prediction of when the Andromeda and Milky Way galaxies will collide and topped the Science Fiction mini section to the link to the actual Official Timeline of fictional future events

I applaud that edit. But I don't think it goes far enough; we should move all the fictional section to the Timeline of fictional future events and just link to that from here. Or maybe there's something about wikipedia standards that says differently, but I don't know about. (Okay there's lots of wikipedia standards I don't know about, but I continue working on that project. :-) --L. 19:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)  — [Unsigned comment added by 69.17.65.50 (talk • contribs).]

All the numbers in the date are the same

"(May 5, 5555 does not work, because it is actully 05/05/5555 05:55 AM 55 seconds"

Why would there actually be zeroes in the date? 64.194.45.67 18:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Because many software implementations of calendars and clocks display a two-digit date and month (MM/DD/YYYY or DD/MM/YYYY depending on locale) regardless of whether two digits are actually necessary. Ubernostrum 06:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Still, that's more of a glitch than a dating convention. Furthermore, it's a relatively recent phenomenon that came with the Information Age (in the past, unnecessary zeroes would have never or very rarely used in the date). As this is an arbitrary coincidence of minimal significance and not a notable event that will happen in 10,000 years, I have removed it. --shadow box 20:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Falsity in the article

While many will view this as nitpicking, I think that this counts as a separate occurance:

There has been a time since November 11th, 1,111 at 11:11 AM when it was all one number: November 11th, 1,111 at 11:11 PM. Same goes for the thng that we'll have to wait until 111,111 for this to happen, it occurs twice in one day. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Whoops, I guess I missed the note - but still, why does it have to be military time? - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Some people in other countries use 24 hour time. - andypham3000

It's called a palindrome, of a special class, I can't remember the name. Just for curiosity's sake, in February 20th, 2002 at 20:02 PM (Read "20/02/2002 20:02" on DD/MM/YYYY) it also happened, but it was a normal palindrome, because it had more than one number on it. It's not anything of big importance, just a funny thing to notice (: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.68.182.161 (talk) 05:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

cmon!

700,000,000 (seven hundred million): The Earth's oceans start to evaporate and the Earth becomes uninhabitable. [1] Future civilization may avoid this by using advanced technology to move the Earth further away from the Sun (or entirely leave Earth altogether in a mass exodus to other habitable planets or on space colonies). 3,000,000,000 (three billion): The Andromeda Galaxy and our Milky Way Galaxy are predicted to collide (they may merge and become one larger galaxy, but only a small percentage of stars will actually collide with other stars mostly because of the vastness of space). 5,000,000,000 (five billion): The Sun becomes a red giant and all life on Earth, possibly Earth itself, is destroyed, barring unforeseen circumstances, unless advanced technology can prevent this. 7,000,000,000 (seven billion): The Sun becomes a white dwarf about the size of the Earth. 1,000,000,000,000 (one trillion): The Sun becomes a black dwarf. 1,000,000,000,000,000 (one quadrillion): The Big Freeze according to many cosmologists. Intelligent life existing then may flee to other universes, as suggested by the physicist Michio Kaku. 10100 (one googol): If the theory of black hole evaporation is correct, it is predicted by many astronomers that all the black holes in our universe will evaporate by around this year.

Look at the source, copyright '97. This is totaly wrong, there is no REAL proof to back this up, i say DELETE it. This crap makes wikipedia look stupid.

I can make the same stuff up too, 1 quadbillion, trillion years from now, the universe will start again.

If I don't see this gone soon, ill get rid of it myself.

Colinstu 18:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I would be happy if it were moved to a separate article with a more speculative tag, but I don't see any reason why we should't quote that source, or The Five Ages of the Universe (ISBN 0684865769) for general speculation of future events. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually that's pretty standard physics taught in universities across the world. See almost any pop sci book by authors like Stephen Hawking or Michio Kaku for examples.
The beauty about this article is that the article is about the very distant future. Therefore, everything written down in this article has a chance of being true. Therefore, I believe that the article should stay. PhiEaglesfan712 03:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

In 700,000,000,000 the earth will be ruled by ponies.Trust me, its science.--207.68.234.177 (talk) 21:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL Hotaru 16:20, 22 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Purple Saturn (sailormoon) (talk • contribs)

"Similar occurrence" ?

Is this an error for "Simultaneous occurrence"? --User:Jim Henry 67.33.165.114 22:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Probably. Go ahead and fix it. If someone has access to a source with another meaning, they'll revert. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Events after 1,000,000

The section on the Events after 1,000,000 is biased toward the Big Bang model. It is uncertain whether these events will occur (or when) but this article states it like the absolute truth. Don't forget to include the cyclic model as well. --Ineffable3000 07:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

There are entirely too many cosmological models; there is no reason to include the cyclic model, plasma cosmology models, or any other theories that are not generally accepted. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
There are three models that are equally accepted nowadays though: flat universe, closed universe, and open universe. Each one of them should be accounted for in the prediction. --Ineffable3000 04:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
It's Wikipedia's job to do that, Christian Articls act like that branch of monothesim is true, while articles of abiogenisis lean towards the big bang.
Ora Stendar 00:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

POV Concerns

I took a shot at rectifying the POV concerns in the After 1,000,000 section. The section now acknowledges that things that far away are too speculative to predict. (I.e., you shouldn't plan your day around the listed events.) Anyone with alternative predictions can simply add them to the list, preferably with sources.

If the next person here agrees, please remove the POV tag. Thanks much! -- Butseriouslyfolks 02:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Events after 1,000,000; sources

I think most of them are in the article Ultimate fate of the universe or in 1 E19 s and more, and are probably sourced there. Wouldn't it be better to leave the section in with a {{cite-section}} tag? It certainly doesn't fall into WP:BLP (!). — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Ice Age?

There is an assertion of an ice age around the year 17000 or 18000, with nothing to back it up. I have therefore deleted it until we can get some kind of, well, evidence. Yahnatan 23:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Stop making these sad space events articles!

This article made me sad since people that are born in year 1,000,000 will get hurt so so so so so badly if im one of them! So delete articles like this (and this one too) and don't make these articles anymore!

Did you just say 'people that are born in the year 1,000,000 will get hurt so so so so so badly if im one of them'? You do realize you'll be dead, right? Parodist —Preceding undated comment added 02:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC).

Maybe human beings will be extinct by that time! (I'm NOT trying to make you more sad!) 124.190.60.171 12:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, its a theory, it might not even happen (although unlikley) anyways, they won't feel pain really, because they will simply perish, not gory torn apart andypham3000 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.58.32 (talk) 14:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I find it interesting and hilerious, but the most sad article is the year 10k problem --62.31.182.173 (talk) 13:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I say keep these because I love these kind of articles because they make me enthaustic about the future of our universe User:Agent008 Tuesday 25th March 2008 AD,12:18 AM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.219.222 (talk) 00:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

None of you know that any of this gloom and doom will happen. By the time it does, if we are still here, (Stop counting us out) we will have the means to sustain ourselves. I recently watched a show that said even in the very last years of the universe future civilizations will still be able to live. That includes us. We just can't know because it's so far away. The predictions we make seem to always be negative. Never once is there a mention of any positive things that will happen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.41.46 (talk) 01:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

If predictions are correct the world will end much earlier.--207.68.234.177 (talk) 21:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Recent vandalism

I just requested page protection successfully because anons were changing the dates. Just thought I'd document this here. --Thinboy00 @288, i.e. 05:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

≈

Should the "~"s be changed to "≈"s?  — [Unsigned comment added by Novjunulo (talk • contribs).] 11:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

They Should! Ora Stendar 00:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Sun becomes a Black Dwarf in 17 billion years?

The Wikipedia article says that the Sun will become a black dwarf in about 10^37 years so I will change it to 10^37 years. 17 billion years is ridiculously too short. Thank You.Maldek (talk) 04:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

And I'm reverting as the 1037 isn't supported by any references whereas the 17 Billion does (with [1]. Wikipedia is not a valid reference and the 1037 in that article seems to be the hypothetical proton lifetime.
The reference says...In another 5 billion years, the Sun will have used up all the hydrogen in its core, then it says, The Sun will only spend one billion years as a red giant, then it says "It may take 10 billion years, but our Sun will reach the end of the line and quietly become a black dwarf." now there are some transitions from one to the other so we add an round up to nearest billion 5+1+10 rounded up is 17 billion. Ttiotsw (talk) 06:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps it should be changed to a trillion years? I've seen references that state that it may take as long as a trillion years before the Sun because a complete black dwarf. 17 billion does seem too short a time from the articles I've read. Voortle (talk) 23:20, 25 June 2008
I've changed it to a trillion years (UTC) http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22a+trillion+years%22+%22black+dwarf%22&btnG=Google+Search On contrast, I can't find anywhere an article which states the Sun will be a black dwarf in 17 billion years http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%2217+billion+years%22+%22black+dwarf%22&btnG=Search Voortle (talk) 23:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
That is NOT a reference !. Please give me a reference that says trllion years for our Sun i.e. the shinny thing that you see when you look up. Not *any* old star. Stars have a huge variety of lifespans. Some are in the millions of years, some are billions and some are trillions. E.g. 1st google link [2] talks about stars, 2nd link [3] isn't reliable and (if you read that) conjectures a phase that is different from the one we're talking about, 3rd link [4] points out your problem "A small red dwarf may live for a trillion years. A smaller to average star like our sun will live about 10 billion years. The very large and massive stars may only live 10 million years.", (4th link broken), then 5th link [5] says "It takes billions of years for white dwarfs to cool, but eventually they do, moving ever down and to the right on the HR diagram. Their fate is to end up as cold, dense, lonely chunks of matter: black dwarfs.". Please READ the actual links you provide and find a reference that SUPPORTS what you say. I have explained where the 17 billion comes from and you will not google for that as it is made up of the remaining life + red giant phase etc. This is like if I say that my car has 6 months left on the warranty and you google for the car+6 month warranty and don't get any hits. Ttiotsw (talk) 03:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
How about 17,000,000,000,000 years then.It this 17 billion? User:Agent008 —Preceding comment was added at 00:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Er, no thats 17 Trillion (short scale). 17 Billion (short scale) would be 17,000,000,000. Wikipedia uses short scale unless otherwise noted. Ttiotsw (talk) 07:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's useful anyway to mention a specific date for our sun to turn into a black dwarf, because there is no formal definition of the difference between a white and a black dwarf. A white dwarf just gradually cools down, and is called black as soon as it is 'cold'. But when exactly is it cold? At 1000 K, 100 K or just 10 K? Furthermore, at this date (if there is life around then) nobody will notice any difference, while the transformation from red giant to white dwarf is quite an event. 130.89.172.147 (talk) 23:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Um, WP:CRYSTAL

I think this doesn't belong, I think it ought to go to afd.--Ipatrol (talk) 14:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Book title

Could I use this article's title for my book? Sir aaron sama girl (talk) 21:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Titles are difficult to copyright. I don't think there's any serious objection, unless you use the material without properly attributing it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Kardashev and Dyson

Source? I doubt that Dyson is counting on FTL, which would be needed to reach Type III so soon. Type II is much more plausible. — Also: Type III civilization redirects to Kardashev scale (likewise I, II, IV, 1, 2, 3, 4). —Tamfang (talk) 19:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

What happens

So umm what happens after the last year? Does the whole cycle start over and earth reforms and we don't remember any of the current world

202.180.112.229 (talk) 09:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Nobody knows. —Tamfang (talk) 18:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 03:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I've replaced the dead link with its last crawl from the wayback machine, but once it did not link properly: http://web.archive.org/web/20070709153832/http://www.marco-peuschel.de/planetenundregulus.htm. — Joe Kress (talk) 05:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


Name

How about naming this page 1 E19 s and beyond?

The table is for durations of time, not specific points in time. So beyond may be misleading, I don't know... Whatever happens in terms of renaming, ALL references must be similarily updated to avoid double redirects... Egil 11:25 Apr 1, 2003 (UTC)

Also, although here pretty clear, in general beyond might be ambiguous because it depends on direction: it can mean more or less (what means 1 sec and beyond?). - Patrick 11:51 Apr 1, 2003 (UTC)

Wouldn't 1 E19 s and longer be more correct in relation to duration? --212.105.25.105 02:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you think 1 E19 s and up sounds appropriate? - WadeSimMiser 00:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Various

About black holes decaying due to Hawking radiation: an article on astronomy in a (german) copy of Scientific American I own, written by Lawrence M. Krauss and Glenn D. Starkmann (both from Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland), states that this is only due to happen at ~1098 years, not 1064. Does anyone have references that would support either estimate? -- Schnee 01:14, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Not sure where the figure 10^10^26 for decay to iron comes from. I believe the correct value is the far more modest 10^1500. Will change if no one has a credible source for the larger value. (Also, I hadn't seen the 10^10^76, but I think black hole talk is still mostly speculation.) Mentioning this is contingent on no proton decay might be important too. -- VV 09:49, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Since this page deals with the projected state of the physical universe, perhaps removal of points referencing non-physical entities adds to the article's legitimacy [i.e. "According to the traditional Vedic time of Hinduism, this is the lifetime of Brahma"]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.144.194.138 (talk) 05:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, (10^10)^76 is the time in which a supermassive black hole evaporates in Hawking radiation, i.e. after that time there is no material left in the universe.

Be careful with powers of powers, (10^10)^76 = 10^760 and not 10^(10^76).

Ahh, stupid error :( Shouldn't edit tired... Jyril 17:00, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

What does "time until positrons and electrons form positronium" mean? Positronium decays with a half-life about 10^-7 seconds.

I agree it doesn't make sense. Removed. _R_ 14:12, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Is not the physicist referenced at 10^1500 years, 10^several million million million years, and in the external links section, named Freeman Dyson, and not Dyson Freeman? Justin Z 19:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


took me a few mins to think about the last number, it nearly drove me mad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.42.83.77 (talk) 01:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


Under 'See Also', the link to the article about Asimov's fictional story seems not-quite relevant. 97.73.64.148 (talk) 00:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Finite time

Has it been proven (not just believed by a vast majority of scientists, but PROVEN that the entire time the universe will be before it ceases to exist is finite?? 66.245.23.71 00:32, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Your question includes the assumption that the universe will cease to exist, which is not proven ;). Seriously, how do you think this could be proven? See falsifiability and scientific method. 193.171.121.30 16:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
The question is also strangely illogical. If then universe ever ceases to exist, it must necessarily have a finite lifetime (assuming creation in the finite past). But if the universe has an infinite lifetime, it cannot ever cease to exist. You cannot assume both a ceasing universe and an infinite lifetime simultaneously.
—Herbee 06:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction

Confused: At 10^64 and 10^100 years we have black holes decaying by the Hawking process, but at (10^10^26) years we have matter collapsing into black holes again. Wouldn't these black holes again decay? Once and for all -- is the end state of the universe one big black hole (all the black holes merge) or uniform low-energy photons (Heat death of the universe)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.57.245.11 (talk • contribs) 5 December 2004.

First, the currently existing solar black holes will evaporate. Then the supermassive black holes at the centers of galaxies will evaporate. Eventually, if the universe doesn't expand too quickly, all the remaining "loose" matter in the universe will collapse again to form a new "universal black hole". You're right, though--this final black hole would evaporate too, eventually, leaving nothing but photons and perhaps a quantity of matter too small to reach critical mass (which might or might not undergo proton decay). But the hypothetical eventual existance of a universal black hole is dependent on the dark energy being too small to prevent the collapse of the matter, but large enough to prevent the collapse of the universe. --71.146.104.66 01:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Iron-54

3.1 × 1022 years – estimated half-life of iron-54

That's simply untrue: iron-54 is stable. Some sources quote a lower limit on the order of 1022.5 years, but that's not an estimated half-life. In fact, it's consistent with stability.
—Herbee 06:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Longest finite time

This time (10^10^76 years) … is likely the longest finite time ever explicitly calculated by a physicist.

If true, that claim would be unverifyable and thus unencyclopedic. But the very next paragraph mentions a longer timespan (10^10^10^10^10^1.1 years), which immediately falsifies this silly claim.
—Herbee 06:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

moved merge proposals

I've moved the merge proposals here to avoid cluttering the article.-Wikianon (talk) 22:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Moving them back - nonsense to archive them, they belong in the articlespace so someone can action them. Totnesmartin (talk) 14:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

This information, especially towards the later dates, very much conflicts with Nova's predictions and these sources seem outdated

you can see for yourself the many differences here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/origins/universe.html click on the link in this link that says launch interactive. nova predicts galaxies will recede beyond the cosmic light horizon 100 trillion years in the future, whereas this article says 3 trillion. nova also predicts star formation will continue well after 10^14 years (which is the time this article predicts it will cease.) there are also many other conflicts in its predictions with this article. its estimate for proton decay is also later and its predication of what will remain forever in the universe are different. it says positrons, neutrinos and photos of enormous length will remain forever. I'm not sure if its estimates are so much farther in the future because its predications are based on a flat universe rather than an open one (of course an open one is more likely), but perhaps someone should contact Nova to clarify where they get their sources. If they're wrong they should correct it on their website, if this article is wrong someone should correct it here. but sources for this article seem a bit outdated.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.65.170.104 (talk) 10:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistencies and Inaccuracies

Most of this list seems tenuous at best. How could planets and stars be flung from their orbits after all stars have faded away, and how could they decay by gravitational radiation when they're already gone? How could galaxies still exist almost 1030 years after all stars have burned out? Why should all matter become 56Fe? This is not the most stable isotope. You state that at 1064 years "black holes" will have evaporated--this should be changed to small black holes, since as stated it is soon contradicted at 10100 years. How can tunneling effects possibly turn all matter into liquid, or indeed cause any permanent change? Why should all matter collapse into black holes at a time 9,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,900 orders of magnitude greater than when all supermassive black holes are gone? This seems patently absurd. How the hell could new black holes form in an expanding, starless, black-holeless universe? Also, why would this time have any practicle meaning in a theory of physics that has difficulty determining what will happen in billions of years, let alone the high orders of magnitude uesd in other clames (up to 101500 even!!) But when the order of magnitude is so large it's written in scienitific notation, you clearly have problems.

The final entry is "infinity years," which not only makes no sense (as written, infinity is not a number but a limit. Using an infinity that actually is a number, like c, wouldn't make things any better either). Then the actual entry itself says the universe will probably end in a heat death, but this clearly contradicts the obscenely humongous entry before it stating a time the whole universe will end up as black holes. Further, it discusses what might happen after heat death, specifically possibly a collapse. A universe cannot collapse after a heat death, or else it would not be a heat death. There is also no mention of the fact that all experimental evidence points against such a collapse. Further, how could a collapse occur infinitely in the future (or techincally as stated, after infinity years into the future)?

There are also a number of straight-up incorrect numbers, as mentioned elsewhere in the talk, and only 2 sources sited, one of which is 30 years old (which is another reason I don't trust the 1010^76 number).

In conclusion, unless somebody can completely overhaul this article, I think it should be heavily tagged as inaccurate, unverified, improbable, and inconsistent. Since it's a brief, relatively uninformative article anyways, perhaps it should just be deleted.Eebster the Great (talk) 18:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

i agree. this article contradicts itself and is highly inaccurate but i don't think it should be erased. nova has a similar article about the fate of the universe on a very long time scale here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/origins/universe.html. the dates are very different and I contacted nova to see where they got their sources for the article, but no reply as of yet. if the sources are less outdated this article should be changed to be consistent with these sources.

How can planets deattach from stars in 10^15 years if all the stars are gone in 10^14 years?

I am just wondering if stars are gone in 100-200 trillion years how can planets deatttach from them in 10^15(one Quadrillion) years? Does this make sense? Please let me know? Another thing is that if stars cease forming in 100 trillion years why would it take an additional 100 trillion years for those stars to burn out if the longest stars can only exist for 14 trillion years? If stellar formation stops in 100 trillion years and stars can exist for no more than 14 trillion years how do they exist for another 100 trillion years? Please let me know. Thank YouMaldek (talk) 08:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


So many inconsistencies

If stellar formation stops in 10-100 trillion years how can the last star remain for 200 trillion years if the longest star has a maximum life of 14 trillion years? Where are the sources for this information? There are way too many inconsistiences and errors and nobody is responding to me, so I will just fix the article myself, if somebody is interested contact me and please help.Maldek (talk) 01:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Official Large number Page

Here is the official source for the large numbers I use in this page


http://www.polytope.net/hedrondude/illion.htm


Hope you enjoy. Thank You.Maldek (talk) 04:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Odd how "Googolquadraplex" on that page gets 1 hit in Google to just that page !. I guess it *must* be Official....or it's spelt wrong. I see now, the official page spells it Googolquadraplex whereas all the other few hundred unofficial pages spell it Googolquadriplex. Must be something to do with trademarks, or, unless, that page isn't as official as it is made out to be or it really should be called a Googolquadraplex. Ttiotsw (talk) 06:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
There is no official source for the names of numbers above a vigintillion (1063 short scale, 10120 long scale) or thereabouts. Spacepotato (talk) 23:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Also the names of large numbers are rarely used actually according to Wikipedia the "Names of numbers larger than a quadrillion are almost never used" (my bold). Truthfully other than thousand and million, and maybe billion and trillion, we should also never use these names here. I'd also avoid billion and trillion. Ttiotsw (talk) 06:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


Justification of Large Number Names

Okay just got the message and was asked to justify the use of large number names. Thank you very much for notifying me. First of all you may be right that using exponents is a better way of representing relativiely large numbers. The point is I am still keeping the exponents in there so that everyone can easily refer to it but in addition I am giving scientific names in addition. Numbers up to 10^3003 (One Millillion) are commonly used. Above One Millillion are names of numbers that are not commonly used as you may have seen in the source I gave you. Up to a Millillion (10^3003) you will find everywhere but numbers above that can still be found in many places but they may not be listed in encyclopedias. The point is I am not taking away the exponets and I am not listing any names of numbers above 10^3003, heck not even close to 10^3003. I just felt I should add something to it. Another thing is that I think exponents do confuse people. The thing is that before I started editing this article I was confused because of so many inconsistencies within the article. As you can see I have added many questions on the discussion page in an attempt to understand these apparent inconsistencies. After a while none of my questions were answered so I did extensive research on the subject matter to find out the truth. After a few weeks I got the answers to my questions. I have already discussed all of the changes on the talk page but for those weeks nobody was interested in this article or what I had to say, so I took it upon myself to improve this article. As I just mentioned I have notifed this on the discussion page. I do understand that there are no quotes in the article supplied by me, but that is because I do not know how to put quotes in the article. I mean I know how to do it, but I don’t know how to do it without it appearing in the article, you know like how to do foot note style. Anyways in my original edits whenever I used a new piece of information I wrote down the URL of the website in the edit summary on the bottom of every Wikipedia summary. I would really appreciate it if I could find out how to do footnotes, but you can always look at the source found it my edits that I included when I first supplied new information. Another thing you might be interested in knowing is that I also had to change lot of the content of the articles because I understand Wikipedia does not tolerate plagiarism. The sad thing is that plagiarism of this article and 1 E19 s and more have both been plagiarized. Before I started editing these two articles both of them were exact copies of articles on the internet. I had to change them so they that they were not plagiarized. Here are the URL’s of the two plagiarized articles. This is the original article plagiarized by the Wikipedia article Heat death of the Universe http://www.tripatlas.com/Heat_death_of_the_universe

You should look at this site and compare this article with this Wikipedia article before I ever started editing this article. What you will notice is that it is exactly same word for word. Even the pictures are all the same, except for one picture of an asteroid that was taken off a couple months ago. But if you go back even further you will see that the asteroid was also originally there in this article. As you can see this source is not even listed as a source even though it was copied word for word. In fact it was never listed word for word and this deceit has been going on for many years. The fact that this Wikipedia article is plagiarized and had many inconsistencies is why I had to change it. I do not know how to do footnotes but I will post all of my sources on the discussion page and explain my edits. Thank you for informing me and just in case you are interested I will show you the article that 1 E19 s and more plagiarized. It is listed below. http://www.openencyclopedia.net/index.php/1_E19_s_and_more


I stumbled upon these two articles while I was extensively researching in search of the truth. Thank you once again and if you have any questions please ask. Maldek (talk) 19:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:1_E19_s_and_more"

  1. Your statement that names of numbers up to 10^3003 are commonly used is not correct. It is true that people have devised names for some of these numbers, which you can find in various books and websites, but these names are not commonly used. For example, if you search for the word trevigintillion on Google Books or Google Scholar, you will find no occurrences.
  2. The first source, http://www.tripatlas.com/Heat_death_of_the_universe , which you claim the Heat death of the universe article was plagiarized from is a mirror of Wikipedia. To quote from the bottom of the page: "This article provided by Wikipedia". They copied us, not we them.
  3. The other source, http://www.openencyclopedia.net/index.php/1_E19_s_and_more , which you claim this article was plagiarized from is also a mirror of Wikipedia. To quote from http://openencyclopedia.net/index.php/Main_Page : "As of right now this site is nothing more than a mirror of the Wikipedia Database. So feel free to use the site if wikipedia is running a little slow. The wikipedia database was last updated 7 February 2006."
  4. Your statement that you always provided sources in your edit summaries is not correct. For example, in this edit you use the summary: "Added the end of all stars from another Wikipedia article and a scholary journal". This is of no value as a reference as it doesn't tell us where your information is coming from.
  5. It's best to provide inline footnotes for your sources. To do this, you should add the template {{reflist}} to the end of the article. Then, whenever you want to insert a footnote, use the <ref> and </ref> tags to surround the footnote text. For example, if you wanted to say that 2+2=4 and credit this fact to the January 3, 2005 issue of Science, p. 183, write: 2+2=4<ref>p. 183, ''Science'', January 3, 2005.</ref>.
Spacepotato (talk) 01:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Justification of Large Number Names

Justification of Large Number Names

Okay just got the message and was asked to justify the use of large number names. Thank you very much for notifying me. First of all you may be right that using exponents is a better way of representing relativiely large numbers. The point is I am still keeping the exponents in there so that everyone can easily refer to it but in addition I am giving scientific names in addition. Numbers up to 10^3003 (One Millillion) are commonly used. Above One Millillion are names of numbers that are not commonly used as you may have seen in the source I gave you. Up to a Millillion (10^3003) you will find everywhere but numbers above that can still be found in many places but they may not be listed in encyclopedias. The point is I am not taking away the exponets and I am not listing any names of numbers above 10^3003, heck not even close to 10^3003. I just felt I should add something to it. Another thing is that I think exponents do confuse people. The thing is that before I started editing this article I was confused because of so many inconsistencies within the article. As you can see I have added many questions on the discussion page in an attempt to understand these apparent inconsistencies. After a while none of my questions were answered so I did extensive research on the subject matter to find out the truth. After a few weeks I got the answers to my questions. I have already discussed all of the changes on the talk page but for those weeks nobody was interested in this article or what I had to say, so I took it upon myself to improve this article. As I just mentioned I have notifed this on the discussion page. I do understand that there are no quotes in the article supplied by me, but that is because I do not know how to put quotes in the article. I mean I know how to do it, but I don’t know how to do it without it appearing in the article, you know like how to do foot note style. Anyways in my original edits whenever I used a new piece of information I wrote down the URL of the website in the edit summary on the bottom of every Wikipedia summary. I would really appreciate it if I could find out how to do footnotes, but you can always look at the source found it my edits that I included when I first supplied new information. Another thing you might be interested in knowing is that I also had to change lot of the content of the articles because I understand Wikipedia does not tolerate plagiarism. The sad thing is that plagiarism of this article and 1 E19 s and more have both been plagiarized. Before I started editing these two articles both of them were exact copies of articles on the internet. I had to change them so they that they were not plagiarized. Here are the URL’s of the two plagiarized articles. This is the original article plagiarized by the Wikipedia article Heat death of the Universe http://www.tripatlas.com/Heat_death_of_the_universe

You should look at this site and compare this article with this Wikipedia article before I ever started editing this article. What you will notice is that it is exactly same word for word. Even the pictures are all the same, except for one picture of an asteroid that was taken off a couple months ago. But if you go back even further you will see that the asteroid was also originally there in this article. As you can see this source is not even listed as a source even though it was copied word for word. In fact it was never listed word for word and this deceit has been going on for many years. The fact that this Wikipedia article is plagiarized and had many inconsistencies is why I had to change it. I do not know how to do footnotes but I will post all of my sources on the discussion page and explain my edits. Thank you for informing me and just in case you are interested I will show you the article that 1 E19 s and more plagiarized. It is listed below. http://www.openencyclopedia.net/index.php/1_E19_s_and_more


I stumbled upon these two articles while I was extensively researching in search of the truth. Thank you once again and if you have any questions please ask. Maldek (talk) 19:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Not true; you have misunderstood a lot on how people copy Wikipedia,

Edits A

  1. Dyson does not discuss the end of star formation in his paper "Time without end". He only says: "The longest-lived low-mass stars will exhaust their hydrogen fuel, contract into white dwarf configurations, and cool down to very low temperatures, within times of the order of 10^14 years. Stars of larger mass will take a shorter time to reach a cold final state..." So, although he says that these stars will cool down in a time on the order of 10^14 years, he says nothing about when they formed.
  2. Dyson's use of the phrase "of the order of" for his low-mass red dwarf lifetime figure indicates that the 10^14 year figure is a rough, order-of-magnitude estimate—the actual low-mass red dwarf lifetime could easily be a factor of 3 smaller or bigger, or possibly even more. Dyson doesn't say how he got this figure, but judging by the other computations in the paper it's probably a simple, back-of-the-envelope calculation. On the other hand, as I've mentioned several times at Talk:Heat death of the universe, Laughlin, Bodenheimer, and Adams (Astrophysical Journal 482, pp. 420–432 (June 10, 1997), Bibcode:1997ApJ...482..420L, doi:10.1086/304125) have modeled these stars in detail to obtain their figure of, for example, a main-sequence lifetime of around 1.1×1013 years for a star with mass 0.08 solar masses and solar metallicity. So, their figure is more reliable.
  3. I fixed the exponential towers, which were misformatted. Spacepotato (talk) 06:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Edits B

  1. The source of the low estimate of 1012 years until star formation ends is not Dyson. Rather, it is Adams and Laughlin (A dying universe: the long-term fate and evolution of astrophysical objects, Reviews of Modern Physics 69, #2 (April 1997), pp. 337–372. Bibcode:1997RvMP...69..337A. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.69.337), section IID.
  2. Adams and Laughlin likewise give the lifetime of low-mass red dwarfs as between 1013 and 2×1013 years, in section IIA.
  3. The source for galaxies outside the Local Supercluster eventually no longer being detectable, ApJ 531, 22 [6], gives 2×1012 years as the time until this happens.
Spacepotato (talk) 01:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Re 1: This edit summary claims that Dyson's citation was given, apparently for the 1014 year figure for the end of star formation. However, there is no Dyson citation in that edit. Even if there were, Dyson's 1979 back-of-the-envelope calculation is less accurate and less current than the 1997 paper by Adams & Laughlin. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 02:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Earth's fate

I don't think the Earth's fate is well-settled; a 2008 paper argues that it probably will be destroyed, while a 1993 paper argues that it will survive, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if further work (if anyone does it) turns up new effects that will change the picture yet again. Since these models can never really be tested observationally and the topic really isn't relevant to this page anyway, I changed the wording (diff) to simply allow either possibility, with a link to Formation and evolution of the Solar System, which is the proper place to address all possibilities in detail. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 15:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Timeline_of_the_far_future/Archive_1&oldid=1144388063"