![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
WikiProject Physics' Reviewing Cheatsheet 06:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Do not remove the elements, but rather strike them as they becomes useless or irrelevant (i.e write
<s>text to be struck</s>) to indicate that this element was verified and found to be alright.
If everything in one of the section (i.e everything in one hidden-box has been addressed), change the color of the section from "red" to "green".
This cheatsheet can be used by anyone.
To add the Reviewing Cheatsheet to an article's talk page, simply place {{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Projects of the Week/Reviewing Cheatsheet}} immediately before the first section.
One of my favorite parts of a wikipedia science page is that an unbiased representation of every idea is usually presented. I find it difficult to believe either that there aren't any physics students, professional researchers, or armchair philosophers with internet connections out there that have produced significantly viewable and researchable material on the (at least percieved) inconsistencies and flaws in one of the most celebrated ideas in modern science and science fiction. It is conspicuously absent on this page. There is no need for an "alternative ideas" page; that page already exists, talks about the ultimate fate of the universe in general, and links to this one along with several other ideas. It is just depressing to see one side of any issue represented in the public domain, whether I agree with it or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.26.187.160 ( talk) 20:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
You cover protons and neutrons, but there's no mention of electrons. What happens to them?
Latrosicarius 16:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Hawking radiation is not proven. Can you write a section on the conflicts of this theory if black holes actually don't evaporate? Regardless of your opinions of whether Hawking is right or wrong, this issue should not be snubbed, ignored, or disregarded.
Latrosicarius 16:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
In this article protons decay directly into radiation.
Originally, I thought protons would decay via beta decay into 1 free neutron, 1 positron, and 1 neutrino, except this couldn't be the case because it requires energy be input into the equation.
So how, exactly, would they decay? Would just degenerate into free quarks?
On the proton decay page page, it says:
According to some such theories, the proton would have a half-life of 10^36 years, and would decay into a positron and a neutral pion that itself immediately decays into photons in the range of gamma radiation:
Why, exactly do they think that? Why do they say it's a pion and not a full neutron? Where's the neutrino? Can this be explained further?
Latrosicarius 16:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
It is not proven that black holes are ring singularities. The article states that black holes are the only place immune to proton decay. However, if theories are true where there's an actual oblate spheroid of degenerate matter inside a black hole's event horizon, then that matter (which would theoretically be composed of neutrons or quarks) would indeed be under the influence of decay. Again, regardless on your opinions of whether Karl Schwarzschild's solutions to Einstein's Field Equations are correct or incorrect, this is still an important alternative which should not be disregarded.
Latrosicarius 16:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not so sure about despite its name. Heat death to me has always meant the death (nonexistance) of heat, rather than death through overheating. But maybe this is because I don't remember being confused when i first heard the term? Morwen 20:46, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
As far as I can understand (and as suggested here), heat death means a flat universe dying from max entropy, and the Big Freeze is an open (constantly expanding) universe dying from expansion causing heat to be spread out - the effects are the same, but the causes different. I've updated the article a little accordingly and linked to that page, but it would be useful if someone could check that this is correct and if so explain it a bit more clearly than I've done :) -- Jomel 16:17, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Does anyone please remember who originated the concept?
Acc to: http://webplaza.pt.lu/fklaess/html/HISTORIA.HTML
it was helmholtz in 1854
interestingly, Clausius is listed LATER with the second law in 1865 .. {{subst: unsignedip}}
Doesn't the third law of thermodynamics play a role here, too? As in, assuming an expanding universe, the temperature will decrease to approximately zero - hence the entropy will go to zero, which I guess actually avoids the whole Heat Death at the end, ultimately going towards the Big Freeze. Or is there a way in which the temperature stays at a non-zero value? (I guess this would be possible with a critically flat universe.) Mike Peel 21:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Black holes will only boil away if their temperature is greater than the temperature of the background radiation. Otherwise they will continue to absorb more energy from the background radiation than they give up through Hawking radiation. At the moment (temp = 2.73 K), the tipping point is for a black hole to have approximately the mass of the planet Mercury.
The scenario in the article at the moment appears to be based on the Big Freeze scenario, with the CMB temperature continuing to fall as the universe continues to expand.
But what happens with the Heat Death scenario? Any little black holes presumably boil away. But bigger black holes continue to grow, taking energy from the CMB, which makes it cooler. This may make more of the black holes too small to survive. Eventually, presumably, only the biggest coldest black hole of the lot survives, in thermal equilibrium with the CMB.
At least that's how it would seem to me to have to go. Jheald 13:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC).
"even smallest perturbations make the biggest difference in this era"
I suspect that this is poorly worded and should say something more like ""even small perturbations make a big difference in this era". {{subst: unsignedip}}
How does this theroy explain the whole "energy can not be created or destroyed" law. If the universe is going to be nothing but photons, etc, in what form will all of the energy be in? -- Cngodles 16:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep in mind that ordinary matter accounts for less than 5% of the matter in the universe, while the rest is comprised of Dark Matter, ~20%, and Dark Energy, ~75%. While Dark Matter is not known to contribute to the expansion of the universe, Dark Energy does cause the universe to expand, since Dark Energy repels itself. The understanding of Dark Energy is still in its infancy, but any discussion of the Heat Death theory requires the inclusion of Dark Energy and Dark Matter. Comosabi 17:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I've partly rewritten the "current status" section to avoid weaselling. To the best of my knowledge, it reflects the current beliefs about the probable fate of the universe, and for completeness it touches on noteworthy past conjectures (while making clear which ones are current). Two things are needed: The crew from Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics or a similar crowd needs to check it for accuracy, and all of the statements marked with "citation needed" templates need to get properly referenced. These references certainly exist; I just don't know them off the top of my head (whereas physics and cosmology types might). -- Christopher Thomas 04:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
^Topic 64.236.245.243 14:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
That is an interesting question, though I do not see it as something of great importance in this article, which is about how a heat death would occur. But to be honest, scientists cannot really be sure. However, one problem for the heat death scenario is that the universe is an open system due to its expansion. This might pose a problem for entropy ever approaching maximum. Another possible scenario is that the universe runs out of hydrogen and all stars die. As for what happens next, that is outside my knowledge. Overall, there is so much we do not know about the universe, so many varying factors, and so many possibilities that there is no scientific consensus (as far as I know) on the final fate of the universe. 68.175.106.168 05:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
"The probability of all things approaches a maximum of 1 in this age. (i.e. a school bus randomly appears out of the nothingness) All comprehensible laws of reality cease to exist. A surrealist universe begins."
What? {{subst: unsignedip}}
I've deleted the section until someone busts out some sources, or said section makes some degree of logical sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.66.172.38 ( talk) 19:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Did anyone notice that the powers in the content box aren't displayed correctly and look like they're part of their bases (eg. 1014 years)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.222.167.61 ( talk) 23:35, August 22, 2007 (UTC)
We don't need poetic captions in an encyclopedia. -- 195.195.166.31 ( talk) 14:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Neutrinos do not decay, nor interact with photons, therefore they will be remaining after all other matter has been lost. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.173.6.75 ( talk) 16:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Is there a source for this? Serendi pod ous 10:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I think something has to be done about the fact that this entire article assumes proton decay to be true, despite a complete lack of evidence that proton decay even exists. Most of the article assumes proton decay as automatically true. That makes most of this article speculative. Seems to be a problem for a Wikipedia article, based on what I know. Any thoughts? SkepticBanner ( talk) 02:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
What if the heat death is final, and nothing wlll ever change after that? JIP | Talk 19:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Heat Death is supposed to be final. That's what death means. But particles will still exist on the Quantum level if it makes you feel any better. So there may always be some Quarks and Leptons to form into something. They'll have an infinite amount of time after all. That could be how this Universe was created in the first place. 76.31.64.54 ( talk) 14:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
No, they couldn't. otherwise it's not Heat Death. As you said heat death means it's final. Science isn't about making people feel better, it's about the fact's. Chocolog ( talk) 14:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that this article states a date of 10^14 (100 trillion) years as the start of the Degenerate Age but other wikipedia articles such as "Graphical timeline of the Stelliferous Era" mention a date of 10^15 (One Quadrillion) Years. I have found a source that also states 10^15 years as the beginning of the Degenerate Age. I hope it helps. Please tell me which date is correct 10^14 or 10^15 because both Wikipedia articles state different dates which is quite significant since they differ by about 900 trillion years. Thank You.
http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1014847 Maldek ( talk) 02:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I have noticed that in this article time periods are discussed such as Degenerate Age, Black Hole Age, Dark Age, and Photon Age. I have noticed that on the bottom of this article they are listed as Era's not ages. So it is called Degenerate Era, Black Hole Era, Dark Era, Photon Era etc. In all of the other Wikipedia articles these time periods are called Era's not Ages. Even searching Degenerate Age on the internet brings up nothing but searching Degenerate Era brings up many Wikipedia articles and other useful information. Even on the bottom of this article the time periods are referred to as Era's. Is it okay if I change them to Era's? Thank You. Maldek ( talk) 04:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
If Stars will burn out in 10^14 years then why does it say that planets will be deattached from their orbits in 10^15 years and Stars will be deattached from their orbits in 10^16 years. Could you please clarify this for me. Thank You. Maldek ( talk) 02:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
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)
04:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Exponential Notation (e.g. 1 x 1016 ) is a much better way of representing large numbers than the bizarre *illion names. Why ?,
I suggest that all *illion names are removed from this article and any other article like this for far-in-the-future dates unless there is a reliable sources that uses that name for that time period (e.g. a scientist uses "Unvigintillion" on a regular basis rather than 1066 ) Ttiotsw ( talk) 08:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
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) 18:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
{{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>.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)
18:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Here my sources. As I said I am not sure how to put references on the page so I will list them here on the discussion for everyone to easily see. I hope there are enough sources. I have researched extensively for the truth. Please feel free to ask questions. Thank You once again for your patience and cooperation.
Stellar Formation Ceases in 100 trillion years
http://www.astrosociety.org/pubs/mercury/0001/cosmic.html
http://www.physicsbookstore.org/0684865769.html
http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys240/lectures/future/future.html
All Stars gone in 200 trillion years
Red Dwarfs can live for more than 100 trillion years.
http://filer.case.edu/sjr16/stars_lifedeath.html
http://filer.case.edu/~sjr16/advanced/stars_avgdeath.html
The orbits of planets will decay due to gravitational radiation in One quadrillion years.
The Orbits of White Dwarfs and Black Dwarfs will decay due to gravitational radiation in One Quintillion years.
Light can exist in the Universe after all stars are gone if two white dwarfs with a combined mass of more than about 1.4 solar masses happen to merge, the resulting object undergoes runaway thermonuclear fusion. The result is a Type Ia supernova. Very, very rarely, the darkness of the Degenerate Age is dispelled for a few weeks while a supernova explodes.
http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys240/lectures/future/future.html
Protons decay in 10^40 years
http://www.everything2.com/title/radioactive
http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/weblog/comments/2530/P20/
http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-1955.html
Timeline for when different size black holes evaporate
http://www.magicdragon.com/UltimateSF/timelineCF.html
Supermassive Black Holes Evaporate in 10^106
http://physics.gmu.edu/astr103/CourseNotes/Html/Lec09/Lec09_pt2_cosmologyModern.htm
Common Uses of Large Numbers
http://www.unc.edu/~rowlett/units/large.html
http://faqs.cs.uu.nl/na-dir/sci-math-faq/largenumbers.html
http://www.jimloy.com/math/billion.htm
http://www.sizes.com/numbers/big_numName.htm
http://hometown.aol.com/hedrondude/scrapers.html
http://isthe.com/cgi-bin/number.cgi
http://en.encyclopedia.livepress.com/index.php/Zettillion
http://www.mrob.com/pub/math/largenum-3.html
http://www.sci.wsu.edu/math/faculty/hudelson/moser.html
http://www.uni-bonn.de/~manfear/numbers_names.php
http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/59155.html
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/LargeNumber.html
http://www.sizes.com/numbers/big_numName.htm
http://www.polytope.net/hedrondude/home.htm
Maldek ( talk) 19:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Will you please come to some sort of an agreement with Spacepotato, because your constant flood of reverts and edits are making this universally important page farcical! CrackDragon ( talk) 00:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I still do not understand what is considered a large number. Is it a million? Does a million have to be wrote as 10^6? You say no illion names so should I erase all names of a million or higher on all Wikipedia articles? Another thing is that the Photon Era has been listed years before you ever came and all of this information has been here you can't just change it because you want to, but anyways if you want I could erase all number names of one million or larger on all Wikipedia articles. Just tell me if this is what you want, but don't get mad at me for it. You are not being clear as to what you say is a large number. Is it a million? Maldek ( talk) 00:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I seriously think you 2×100 should sort out your differences and come to some agreement, rather than continually edit each others edits, turning this page into a battleground! Anyone who continually refuses to compromise, and thinks only their point of view is correct is either:-
Cummon lads! You surely don't want to be stuck with one of those monikers?! CrackDragon ( talk) 00:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
From what we know of the evolution of the universe, it has expanded roughly in proportion with its age and has been filled with matter whose temperature has dropped inversely with time. If time is viewed logarithmically, rather than linearly, then the universe can be perceived always to have been about the same size and temperature and to have particles within it moving roughly the same speed, relative to the size of the universe and the speed of light, which also can be perceived as remaining constant relative to what ordinarily we would call very small increments of space and time near the Big Bang. By this definition I suppose the wavelength of red-shifted light remains about the same, and perhaps defining its change (and the size of the universe) to be constant would be even a better way to see things. Of course, taking this view means accepting that all the entities of ordinary chemistry - atoms and molecules - were once enormous, flimsy things.
It follows that instead of expecting the universe to die a "heat death", we should renormalize our expectations. For some inhabitant of 10^100 years rather than 10^10 years, perhaps a temperature of 3x10^-8 Kelvins would seem quite balmy and a period of 10^10 days would seem like a fair time to accomplish something.
Of course, in order for such a time to have inhabitants it must have interesting physics, but just as physicists at the Large Hadron Collider expect to find an endless succession of effective field theories to describe higher and higher energies, perhaps there are tiny, subtle forces, weaker than gravity, slower than the decay of the proton, which we simply cannot measure against a background of more powerful forces. Such an idea may offend the notion of simple physics carved on stone tablets by a terse god, but it is not out of keeping with the florid excesses of the Mandelbrot Set.
It seems hard to find sources fully expressing a perspective of this type, yet it seems implicit in many statements that are made. I'd appreciate if anyone can post some good references I could make use of here. Wnt ( talk) 16:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
1. First of all I edited 10^37 years as the half-life of protons. Is there any source that says this? And if the half-life can be anywhere between 10^32 years and 10^41 years why can't 10^36 work? We both agree that all protons outside of black holes decay in 10^40 years so is there anyway we can find a source that says how many half-lives protons must go before all the protons in the universe decay?
2. All matter outside of black holes decay in 10^40 years. Does baryonic mean matter outside of black holes? Because if it does we can use this word baryonic. But the thing is that all matter outside of black holes decays in 10^40 years and I am not sure if all baryonic matter means the same thing, please clarify.
3. To avoid confusion I usually say that in 10^40 years all protons outside of black holes decay. I say this because the protons inside black holes do not start decaying until 10^66 years. The protons in black holes do decay but not by 10^40 years. In 10^40 years all the protons outside of black holes decay but the protons in black holes do not start decaying until 10^66 years. That is why I do this to avoid confusion otherwise the information would contradict each other since there would still be protons left in black holes until 10^106 years when even the protons in the supermassive black holes decay.
4. Another thing is that according to my source on the timeline of decay of black holes the figure 2x 10^66 etc. is not used. If you see the sourece it just lists 10^66, 10^69, 10^72 etc. Here is the site I got my information from regarding the timeline of black hole disintigration. I hope you find it helpful.
http://www.magicdragon.com/UltimateSF/timelineCF.html
I hope you see where I am coming from and I hope we can work this out. Thank You for your cooperation. Maldek ( talk) 22:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi there are a few things regarding this article that I have questions about.
1. You add neutron decay along with proton decay. Is there any source for neutron decay? How about electron decay?
2. You say in 10^40 years all protons will decay. Are there any protons in black holes? So if protons don’t decay in black holes, what decays?
3. What is baryonic matter? When will matter decay?
4. What's wrong with my source for the timeline for the decay of black holes? My source is listed below and it lists slightly different numbers. http://www.magicdragon.com/UltimateSF/timelineCF.html
5. I found two more sources for the half-life of a proton being 10^36 years. Are these two sources okay?
http://www.openencyclopedia.net/index.php/1_E19_s_and_more
http://en.encyclopedia.livepress.com/index.php/1_E25_s
6. I found another source for the Photon Era, can we use it?
7. The Site I used for Black Hole Decay mentions large numbers. Since they are used in the article to describe the time periods of black hole decay can I use the numbers? The large numbers are listed there and you said I could use a number if the source lists the number? Please let me know.
http://www.magicdragon.com/UltimateSF/timelineCF.html
Thank You for your time, effort, and cooperation.
Maldek (
talk)
01:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Here are my sources for my edits
These are my sources for the The Milky Way and the Andromeda Galxies Colliding in 3 billion years
Is there something wrong with all of them? If so what’s wrong with them?
http://www.galaxydynamics.org/tflops.html
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/galaxies/colliding.html
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/galaxy_collides_020507-1.html
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/week252.html (Good Sun life)
These are my sources for our Galaxy being the only visible Galaxy from Earth in 3 Trillion Years.
Is there something wrong with all of them? If so what’s wrong with them?
http://www.universetoday.com/2007/05/22/the-universe-will-appear-static-in-3-trillion-years/
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070524094126.htm
http://www.theallineed.com/astronomy/07060501.htm
http://www.newuniverse.co.uk/n-archive_644.html
http://www.saao.ac.za/assa/features/cosmology-articles/end.html
http://www.universetoday.com/2007/07/25/the-end-of-everything/
These are my sources that state that the smallest red dwarfs can live for over 100 Trillion Years.
Is there something wrong with all of them? If so what’s wrong with them?
Red Dwarfs can live for more than 100 trillion years. http://filer.case.edu/sjr16/stars_lifedeath.html http://filer.case.edu/~sjr16/advanced/stars_avgdeath.html
Thank You for your cooperation. Maldek ( talk) 01:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
This edit war is rather ridiculous and has been going on for nearly a month now (since June 24). Discussion on the article talk page is going nowhere, as different editors appear to be speaking different languages, particularly with regards to reliable sources. I think something needs to be done to make this stop, or at least make progress.
Would an outside opinion from WikiProject Astronomy or a formal request for comment help the editors resolve this? (A case could be perhaps be made against any of the involved parties, including me, for a temporary edit warring block. A request for page protection may be necessary to freeze the edit war somewhere.)
(I stumbled on this dispute recently, so I'm sort of but not really a third party.) ASHill ( talk | contribs) 03:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
1. As you know 1.7x 10^106 plus 1.7x 10^106 equals 3.4x 10^106 so. Basically if you add a number to the same number it is twice that number. 10^6 plus 10^6 equals 2x 10^6. This means one million plus one million equals two million. So 2 times 1.7 equals 3.4. If you add 10^53 to 1.7x 10^106 it equals 2.55x 10^106 In the same way if you add 10^40 then you had .3773 to the number 1.7 to get 2.077x 10^106. Thank You.
2. I understand your rule that I cannot give names to numbers that are 10^15 or higher. I understand that, but now you have a new rule that I can’t write numbers using scientific notation. For example when I was writing 10^100 Septillion in scientific notation I wrote 10^1 followed by 26 zeros. This is scientific notation and you said that is what was supposed to be written. I understand that you are using tetration but people get confused by tetration and since all the other numbers before are expressed using normal scientific notation, it doesn’t maintain consistency throughout the article. For example before I started editing this article people would write 10^(10^26) as 10^10^26. This is obviously not the same thing. For example 3^3^3 equals 19,683 but 3^(3^3) equals 7.62 x 10^12. Big difference even in small numbers. People are often confused by tetration or exponential towers because they can’t see how much bigger a number actually is when it is condensed. This is why to avoid confusion and maintain consistency throughout the article I represent all numbers in scientific notation just like you said. And I removed all “large number” names of 10^15 and above. You said it was okay to list all numbers in scientific notation because it was easy to understand what the number represented. But now you say that I cannot represent the larger numbers with normal scientific notation which is more common and easier to understand among the average person. Why is this? When you use tetration (exponential towers) people are confused as to how big the number actually is because it looks smaller. They think 3^(3^3) is the same thing as 3^3^3 when there is a big difference. Because of this they will think that these numbers are much smaller than the other numbers given in the article , when in actuality there are enormously larger. If you don’t believe me look at the history of this article and especially article E19 s and more and you will see that for numbers such as 10^(10^26) I had added the parenthesis and whenever I did that somebody would edit it put 10^10^26 because they thought these numbers were the same thing even though 10^(10^26) is much much much much larger than 10^10^26. This is why to avoid confusion and to maintain consistency throughout the article I isted all the numnbers in normal scientific notation just like you told me to. If you use exponential towers on the large numbers than you will also have to use it on small numbers such as 10^11. All of the numbers would thus have to be represented in exponential notation because consistency is also one of your rules when reffering to time periods. So scientific notation is not okay to use? Should I convert all the numbers using exponential towers? How do you know when to write a number in scientific notation, and when to write a number using exponential towers? You just told me to write everything in scientific notation so I did and now you are changing your mind? Please respond to this message. Thank You for your cooperation. Maldek ( talk) 03:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Is the black hole lifetime table (in the Heat death of the universe#The Black Hole Era, from 1040 years to 10100 years from now section) really necessary for this article? All that detail seems only tangentially related to the heat death. Moreover, the table borders on original research anyway because it's applying the cited equation (those numbers aren't in the cited source). ASHill ( talk | contribs) 19:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry I erased some important edits on the date of these theories but in order to undue many of the edits you made I had to undo all of them because if you have too many intermediate edits it won’t let you undo any of the earlier edits. The first thing I would like to bring up is that Spacepotatoe and I both agree on the Black Hole Chart. Actually it was Spacepotatoe’s idea in the first place to organize my data with into a chart. Spacepotatoe himself has found reliable research that is even more accurate than my data so he personally deserves credit for the exact dates of black hole disintegration. We all know all of Spacepotatoe’s sources are 100 percent scientifically accurate and reliable, so there is no arguing there. Spacepotatoe also deserves credit for adding the Coalescing of the Local Group which you erased. After Spacepotatoe added this new section on the Merging of the Local Group, I complemented the section with a new section that explained the process. This section was the Merging of the Milky Way and the Andromeda Galaxy, a sort of precursor to the Colascing of the Local Group. Then Spacepotatoe got 100 percent reliable sources and fixed my new section so that is 100 percent scientifically correct and appropriate for Wikipedia. So all 3 of the things you erased were approved by Spacepotatoe who used 100 percent scientifically accurate and reliable sources. Another thing is if you do not want the black hole chart, I can go back to the way I used the information before the Chart, which was creating a new section for each black hole mass. I could do that if you like, but I think you would like the chart displaying the black hole lifetimes more than my previous method, and I know for certain Spacepotatoe likes the Chart better since he created and pioneered it. Another thing is that Spacepotatoe has establisthed the correct lifetime for 20 trillion solar mass black holes at 1.7x 10^106 years. He has supplied 100 percent scientifically accurate and reliable sources for this figure. I know because originally I wrote 10^106 years for the lifetime of 20 trillion solar mass black holes and he told me about his perfect source that states 1.7x 10^106 years. So I would appreaciate it if you stopped changing the number to 10^100 years since it is not consistent with the article. Another thing is that you are erasing information about the Black Hole Era which both me and SpacePotatoe agree upon and, Spacepotatoe has once again supplied 100 percent scientifically accurate and reliable sources for it. So I would appreciate it if you stop erasing material from the article that has already been agreed upon by Spacepotaoe; Information which I support in firm belief of its 100 percent scientific accuracy and reliability. That is why I reverted the article back to the last edit by Spacepotatoe. Once again I am sorry I erased some important corrections that you made, but as I explained before in order to undo some of your earlier edits I had to undo your more recent edits because you cannot undo earlier edits if there are too many intermediate edits. Thank You for your cooperation. Thank You. Maldek ( talk) 04:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
WikiProject Physics' Reviewing Cheatsheet 06:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Do not remove the elements, but rather strike them as they becomes useless or irrelevant (i.e write
<s>text to be struck</s>) to indicate that this element was verified and found to be alright.
If everything in one of the section (i.e everything in one hidden-box has been addressed), change the color of the section from "red" to "green".
This cheatsheet can be used by anyone.
To add the Reviewing Cheatsheet to an article's talk page, simply place {{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Projects of the Week/Reviewing Cheatsheet}} immediately before the first section.
One of my favorite parts of a wikipedia science page is that an unbiased representation of every idea is usually presented. I find it difficult to believe either that there aren't any physics students, professional researchers, or armchair philosophers with internet connections out there that have produced significantly viewable and researchable material on the (at least percieved) inconsistencies and flaws in one of the most celebrated ideas in modern science and science fiction. It is conspicuously absent on this page. There is no need for an "alternative ideas" page; that page already exists, talks about the ultimate fate of the universe in general, and links to this one along with several other ideas. It is just depressing to see one side of any issue represented in the public domain, whether I agree with it or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.26.187.160 ( talk) 20:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
You cover protons and neutrons, but there's no mention of electrons. What happens to them?
Latrosicarius 16:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Hawking radiation is not proven. Can you write a section on the conflicts of this theory if black holes actually don't evaporate? Regardless of your opinions of whether Hawking is right or wrong, this issue should not be snubbed, ignored, or disregarded.
Latrosicarius 16:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
In this article protons decay directly into radiation.
Originally, I thought protons would decay via beta decay into 1 free neutron, 1 positron, and 1 neutrino, except this couldn't be the case because it requires energy be input into the equation.
So how, exactly, would they decay? Would just degenerate into free quarks?
On the proton decay page page, it says:
According to some such theories, the proton would have a half-life of 10^36 years, and would decay into a positron and a neutral pion that itself immediately decays into photons in the range of gamma radiation:
Why, exactly do they think that? Why do they say it's a pion and not a full neutron? Where's the neutrino? Can this be explained further?
Latrosicarius 16:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
It is not proven that black holes are ring singularities. The article states that black holes are the only place immune to proton decay. However, if theories are true where there's an actual oblate spheroid of degenerate matter inside a black hole's event horizon, then that matter (which would theoretically be composed of neutrons or quarks) would indeed be under the influence of decay. Again, regardless on your opinions of whether Karl Schwarzschild's solutions to Einstein's Field Equations are correct or incorrect, this is still an important alternative which should not be disregarded.
Latrosicarius 16:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not so sure about despite its name. Heat death to me has always meant the death (nonexistance) of heat, rather than death through overheating. But maybe this is because I don't remember being confused when i first heard the term? Morwen 20:46, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
As far as I can understand (and as suggested here), heat death means a flat universe dying from max entropy, and the Big Freeze is an open (constantly expanding) universe dying from expansion causing heat to be spread out - the effects are the same, but the causes different. I've updated the article a little accordingly and linked to that page, but it would be useful if someone could check that this is correct and if so explain it a bit more clearly than I've done :) -- Jomel 16:17, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Does anyone please remember who originated the concept?
Acc to: http://webplaza.pt.lu/fklaess/html/HISTORIA.HTML
it was helmholtz in 1854
interestingly, Clausius is listed LATER with the second law in 1865 .. {{subst: unsignedip}}
Doesn't the third law of thermodynamics play a role here, too? As in, assuming an expanding universe, the temperature will decrease to approximately zero - hence the entropy will go to zero, which I guess actually avoids the whole Heat Death at the end, ultimately going towards the Big Freeze. Or is there a way in which the temperature stays at a non-zero value? (I guess this would be possible with a critically flat universe.) Mike Peel 21:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Black holes will only boil away if their temperature is greater than the temperature of the background radiation. Otherwise they will continue to absorb more energy from the background radiation than they give up through Hawking radiation. At the moment (temp = 2.73 K), the tipping point is for a black hole to have approximately the mass of the planet Mercury.
The scenario in the article at the moment appears to be based on the Big Freeze scenario, with the CMB temperature continuing to fall as the universe continues to expand.
But what happens with the Heat Death scenario? Any little black holes presumably boil away. But bigger black holes continue to grow, taking energy from the CMB, which makes it cooler. This may make more of the black holes too small to survive. Eventually, presumably, only the biggest coldest black hole of the lot survives, in thermal equilibrium with the CMB.
At least that's how it would seem to me to have to go. Jheald 13:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC).
"even smallest perturbations make the biggest difference in this era"
I suspect that this is poorly worded and should say something more like ""even small perturbations make a big difference in this era". {{subst: unsignedip}}
How does this theroy explain the whole "energy can not be created or destroyed" law. If the universe is going to be nothing but photons, etc, in what form will all of the energy be in? -- Cngodles 16:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep in mind that ordinary matter accounts for less than 5% of the matter in the universe, while the rest is comprised of Dark Matter, ~20%, and Dark Energy, ~75%. While Dark Matter is not known to contribute to the expansion of the universe, Dark Energy does cause the universe to expand, since Dark Energy repels itself. The understanding of Dark Energy is still in its infancy, but any discussion of the Heat Death theory requires the inclusion of Dark Energy and Dark Matter. Comosabi 17:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I've partly rewritten the "current status" section to avoid weaselling. To the best of my knowledge, it reflects the current beliefs about the probable fate of the universe, and for completeness it touches on noteworthy past conjectures (while making clear which ones are current). Two things are needed: The crew from Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics or a similar crowd needs to check it for accuracy, and all of the statements marked with "citation needed" templates need to get properly referenced. These references certainly exist; I just don't know them off the top of my head (whereas physics and cosmology types might). -- Christopher Thomas 04:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
^Topic 64.236.245.243 14:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
That is an interesting question, though I do not see it as something of great importance in this article, which is about how a heat death would occur. But to be honest, scientists cannot really be sure. However, one problem for the heat death scenario is that the universe is an open system due to its expansion. This might pose a problem for entropy ever approaching maximum. Another possible scenario is that the universe runs out of hydrogen and all stars die. As for what happens next, that is outside my knowledge. Overall, there is so much we do not know about the universe, so many varying factors, and so many possibilities that there is no scientific consensus (as far as I know) on the final fate of the universe. 68.175.106.168 05:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
"The probability of all things approaches a maximum of 1 in this age. (i.e. a school bus randomly appears out of the nothingness) All comprehensible laws of reality cease to exist. A surrealist universe begins."
What? {{subst: unsignedip}}
I've deleted the section until someone busts out some sources, or said section makes some degree of logical sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.66.172.38 ( talk) 19:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Did anyone notice that the powers in the content box aren't displayed correctly and look like they're part of their bases (eg. 1014 years)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.222.167.61 ( talk) 23:35, August 22, 2007 (UTC)
We don't need poetic captions in an encyclopedia. -- 195.195.166.31 ( talk) 14:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Neutrinos do not decay, nor interact with photons, therefore they will be remaining after all other matter has been lost. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.173.6.75 ( talk) 16:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Is there a source for this? Serendi pod ous 10:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I think something has to be done about the fact that this entire article assumes proton decay to be true, despite a complete lack of evidence that proton decay even exists. Most of the article assumes proton decay as automatically true. That makes most of this article speculative. Seems to be a problem for a Wikipedia article, based on what I know. Any thoughts? SkepticBanner ( talk) 02:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
What if the heat death is final, and nothing wlll ever change after that? JIP | Talk 19:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Heat Death is supposed to be final. That's what death means. But particles will still exist on the Quantum level if it makes you feel any better. So there may always be some Quarks and Leptons to form into something. They'll have an infinite amount of time after all. That could be how this Universe was created in the first place. 76.31.64.54 ( talk) 14:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
No, they couldn't. otherwise it's not Heat Death. As you said heat death means it's final. Science isn't about making people feel better, it's about the fact's. Chocolog ( talk) 14:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that this article states a date of 10^14 (100 trillion) years as the start of the Degenerate Age but other wikipedia articles such as "Graphical timeline of the Stelliferous Era" mention a date of 10^15 (One Quadrillion) Years. I have found a source that also states 10^15 years as the beginning of the Degenerate Age. I hope it helps. Please tell me which date is correct 10^14 or 10^15 because both Wikipedia articles state different dates which is quite significant since they differ by about 900 trillion years. Thank You.
http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1014847 Maldek ( talk) 02:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I have noticed that in this article time periods are discussed such as Degenerate Age, Black Hole Age, Dark Age, and Photon Age. I have noticed that on the bottom of this article they are listed as Era's not ages. So it is called Degenerate Era, Black Hole Era, Dark Era, Photon Era etc. In all of the other Wikipedia articles these time periods are called Era's not Ages. Even searching Degenerate Age on the internet brings up nothing but searching Degenerate Era brings up many Wikipedia articles and other useful information. Even on the bottom of this article the time periods are referred to as Era's. Is it okay if I change them to Era's? Thank You. Maldek ( talk) 04:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
If Stars will burn out in 10^14 years then why does it say that planets will be deattached from their orbits in 10^15 years and Stars will be deattached from their orbits in 10^16 years. Could you please clarify this for me. Thank You. Maldek ( talk) 02:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
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)
04:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Exponential Notation (e.g. 1 x 1016 ) is a much better way of representing large numbers than the bizarre *illion names. Why ?,
I suggest that all *illion names are removed from this article and any other article like this for far-in-the-future dates unless there is a reliable sources that uses that name for that time period (e.g. a scientist uses "Unvigintillion" on a regular basis rather than 1066 ) Ttiotsw ( talk) 08:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
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) 18:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
{{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>.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)
18:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Here my sources. As I said I am not sure how to put references on the page so I will list them here on the discussion for everyone to easily see. I hope there are enough sources. I have researched extensively for the truth. Please feel free to ask questions. Thank You once again for your patience and cooperation.
Stellar Formation Ceases in 100 trillion years
http://www.astrosociety.org/pubs/mercury/0001/cosmic.html
http://www.physicsbookstore.org/0684865769.html
http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys240/lectures/future/future.html
All Stars gone in 200 trillion years
Red Dwarfs can live for more than 100 trillion years.
http://filer.case.edu/sjr16/stars_lifedeath.html
http://filer.case.edu/~sjr16/advanced/stars_avgdeath.html
The orbits of planets will decay due to gravitational radiation in One quadrillion years.
The Orbits of White Dwarfs and Black Dwarfs will decay due to gravitational radiation in One Quintillion years.
Light can exist in the Universe after all stars are gone if two white dwarfs with a combined mass of more than about 1.4 solar masses happen to merge, the resulting object undergoes runaway thermonuclear fusion. The result is a Type Ia supernova. Very, very rarely, the darkness of the Degenerate Age is dispelled for a few weeks while a supernova explodes.
http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys240/lectures/future/future.html
Protons decay in 10^40 years
http://www.everything2.com/title/radioactive
http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/weblog/comments/2530/P20/
http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-1955.html
Timeline for when different size black holes evaporate
http://www.magicdragon.com/UltimateSF/timelineCF.html
Supermassive Black Holes Evaporate in 10^106
http://physics.gmu.edu/astr103/CourseNotes/Html/Lec09/Lec09_pt2_cosmologyModern.htm
Common Uses of Large Numbers
http://www.unc.edu/~rowlett/units/large.html
http://faqs.cs.uu.nl/na-dir/sci-math-faq/largenumbers.html
http://www.jimloy.com/math/billion.htm
http://www.sizes.com/numbers/big_numName.htm
http://hometown.aol.com/hedrondude/scrapers.html
http://isthe.com/cgi-bin/number.cgi
http://en.encyclopedia.livepress.com/index.php/Zettillion
http://www.mrob.com/pub/math/largenum-3.html
http://www.sci.wsu.edu/math/faculty/hudelson/moser.html
http://www.uni-bonn.de/~manfear/numbers_names.php
http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/59155.html
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/LargeNumber.html
http://www.sizes.com/numbers/big_numName.htm
http://www.polytope.net/hedrondude/home.htm
Maldek ( talk) 19:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Will you please come to some sort of an agreement with Spacepotato, because your constant flood of reverts and edits are making this universally important page farcical! CrackDragon ( talk) 00:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I still do not understand what is considered a large number. Is it a million? Does a million have to be wrote as 10^6? You say no illion names so should I erase all names of a million or higher on all Wikipedia articles? Another thing is that the Photon Era has been listed years before you ever came and all of this information has been here you can't just change it because you want to, but anyways if you want I could erase all number names of one million or larger on all Wikipedia articles. Just tell me if this is what you want, but don't get mad at me for it. You are not being clear as to what you say is a large number. Is it a million? Maldek ( talk) 00:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I seriously think you 2×100 should sort out your differences and come to some agreement, rather than continually edit each others edits, turning this page into a battleground! Anyone who continually refuses to compromise, and thinks only their point of view is correct is either:-
Cummon lads! You surely don't want to be stuck with one of those monikers?! CrackDragon ( talk) 00:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
From what we know of the evolution of the universe, it has expanded roughly in proportion with its age and has been filled with matter whose temperature has dropped inversely with time. If time is viewed logarithmically, rather than linearly, then the universe can be perceived always to have been about the same size and temperature and to have particles within it moving roughly the same speed, relative to the size of the universe and the speed of light, which also can be perceived as remaining constant relative to what ordinarily we would call very small increments of space and time near the Big Bang. By this definition I suppose the wavelength of red-shifted light remains about the same, and perhaps defining its change (and the size of the universe) to be constant would be even a better way to see things. Of course, taking this view means accepting that all the entities of ordinary chemistry - atoms and molecules - were once enormous, flimsy things.
It follows that instead of expecting the universe to die a "heat death", we should renormalize our expectations. For some inhabitant of 10^100 years rather than 10^10 years, perhaps a temperature of 3x10^-8 Kelvins would seem quite balmy and a period of 10^10 days would seem like a fair time to accomplish something.
Of course, in order for such a time to have inhabitants it must have interesting physics, but just as physicists at the Large Hadron Collider expect to find an endless succession of effective field theories to describe higher and higher energies, perhaps there are tiny, subtle forces, weaker than gravity, slower than the decay of the proton, which we simply cannot measure against a background of more powerful forces. Such an idea may offend the notion of simple physics carved on stone tablets by a terse god, but it is not out of keeping with the florid excesses of the Mandelbrot Set.
It seems hard to find sources fully expressing a perspective of this type, yet it seems implicit in many statements that are made. I'd appreciate if anyone can post some good references I could make use of here. Wnt ( talk) 16:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
1. First of all I edited 10^37 years as the half-life of protons. Is there any source that says this? And if the half-life can be anywhere between 10^32 years and 10^41 years why can't 10^36 work? We both agree that all protons outside of black holes decay in 10^40 years so is there anyway we can find a source that says how many half-lives protons must go before all the protons in the universe decay?
2. All matter outside of black holes decay in 10^40 years. Does baryonic mean matter outside of black holes? Because if it does we can use this word baryonic. But the thing is that all matter outside of black holes decays in 10^40 years and I am not sure if all baryonic matter means the same thing, please clarify.
3. To avoid confusion I usually say that in 10^40 years all protons outside of black holes decay. I say this because the protons inside black holes do not start decaying until 10^66 years. The protons in black holes do decay but not by 10^40 years. In 10^40 years all the protons outside of black holes decay but the protons in black holes do not start decaying until 10^66 years. That is why I do this to avoid confusion otherwise the information would contradict each other since there would still be protons left in black holes until 10^106 years when even the protons in the supermassive black holes decay.
4. Another thing is that according to my source on the timeline of decay of black holes the figure 2x 10^66 etc. is not used. If you see the sourece it just lists 10^66, 10^69, 10^72 etc. Here is the site I got my information from regarding the timeline of black hole disintigration. I hope you find it helpful.
http://www.magicdragon.com/UltimateSF/timelineCF.html
I hope you see where I am coming from and I hope we can work this out. Thank You for your cooperation. Maldek ( talk) 22:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi there are a few things regarding this article that I have questions about.
1. You add neutron decay along with proton decay. Is there any source for neutron decay? How about electron decay?
2. You say in 10^40 years all protons will decay. Are there any protons in black holes? So if protons don’t decay in black holes, what decays?
3. What is baryonic matter? When will matter decay?
4. What's wrong with my source for the timeline for the decay of black holes? My source is listed below and it lists slightly different numbers. http://www.magicdragon.com/UltimateSF/timelineCF.html
5. I found two more sources for the half-life of a proton being 10^36 years. Are these two sources okay?
http://www.openencyclopedia.net/index.php/1_E19_s_and_more
http://en.encyclopedia.livepress.com/index.php/1_E25_s
6. I found another source for the Photon Era, can we use it?
7. The Site I used for Black Hole Decay mentions large numbers. Since they are used in the article to describe the time periods of black hole decay can I use the numbers? The large numbers are listed there and you said I could use a number if the source lists the number? Please let me know.
http://www.magicdragon.com/UltimateSF/timelineCF.html
Thank You for your time, effort, and cooperation.
Maldek (
talk)
01:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Here are my sources for my edits
These are my sources for the The Milky Way and the Andromeda Galxies Colliding in 3 billion years
Is there something wrong with all of them? If so what’s wrong with them?
http://www.galaxydynamics.org/tflops.html
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/galaxies/colliding.html
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/galaxy_collides_020507-1.html
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/week252.html (Good Sun life)
These are my sources for our Galaxy being the only visible Galaxy from Earth in 3 Trillion Years.
Is there something wrong with all of them? If so what’s wrong with them?
http://www.universetoday.com/2007/05/22/the-universe-will-appear-static-in-3-trillion-years/
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070524094126.htm
http://www.theallineed.com/astronomy/07060501.htm
http://www.newuniverse.co.uk/n-archive_644.html
http://www.saao.ac.za/assa/features/cosmology-articles/end.html
http://www.universetoday.com/2007/07/25/the-end-of-everything/
These are my sources that state that the smallest red dwarfs can live for over 100 Trillion Years.
Is there something wrong with all of them? If so what’s wrong with them?
Red Dwarfs can live for more than 100 trillion years. http://filer.case.edu/sjr16/stars_lifedeath.html http://filer.case.edu/~sjr16/advanced/stars_avgdeath.html
Thank You for your cooperation. Maldek ( talk) 01:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
This edit war is rather ridiculous and has been going on for nearly a month now (since June 24). Discussion on the article talk page is going nowhere, as different editors appear to be speaking different languages, particularly with regards to reliable sources. I think something needs to be done to make this stop, or at least make progress.
Would an outside opinion from WikiProject Astronomy or a formal request for comment help the editors resolve this? (A case could be perhaps be made against any of the involved parties, including me, for a temporary edit warring block. A request for page protection may be necessary to freeze the edit war somewhere.)
(I stumbled on this dispute recently, so I'm sort of but not really a third party.) ASHill ( talk | contribs) 03:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
1. As you know 1.7x 10^106 plus 1.7x 10^106 equals 3.4x 10^106 so. Basically if you add a number to the same number it is twice that number. 10^6 plus 10^6 equals 2x 10^6. This means one million plus one million equals two million. So 2 times 1.7 equals 3.4. If you add 10^53 to 1.7x 10^106 it equals 2.55x 10^106 In the same way if you add 10^40 then you had .3773 to the number 1.7 to get 2.077x 10^106. Thank You.
2. I understand your rule that I cannot give names to numbers that are 10^15 or higher. I understand that, but now you have a new rule that I can’t write numbers using scientific notation. For example when I was writing 10^100 Septillion in scientific notation I wrote 10^1 followed by 26 zeros. This is scientific notation and you said that is what was supposed to be written. I understand that you are using tetration but people get confused by tetration and since all the other numbers before are expressed using normal scientific notation, it doesn’t maintain consistency throughout the article. For example before I started editing this article people would write 10^(10^26) as 10^10^26. This is obviously not the same thing. For example 3^3^3 equals 19,683 but 3^(3^3) equals 7.62 x 10^12. Big difference even in small numbers. People are often confused by tetration or exponential towers because they can’t see how much bigger a number actually is when it is condensed. This is why to avoid confusion and maintain consistency throughout the article I represent all numbers in scientific notation just like you said. And I removed all “large number” names of 10^15 and above. You said it was okay to list all numbers in scientific notation because it was easy to understand what the number represented. But now you say that I cannot represent the larger numbers with normal scientific notation which is more common and easier to understand among the average person. Why is this? When you use tetration (exponential towers) people are confused as to how big the number actually is because it looks smaller. They think 3^(3^3) is the same thing as 3^3^3 when there is a big difference. Because of this they will think that these numbers are much smaller than the other numbers given in the article , when in actuality there are enormously larger. If you don’t believe me look at the history of this article and especially article E19 s and more and you will see that for numbers such as 10^(10^26) I had added the parenthesis and whenever I did that somebody would edit it put 10^10^26 because they thought these numbers were the same thing even though 10^(10^26) is much much much much larger than 10^10^26. This is why to avoid confusion and to maintain consistency throughout the article I isted all the numnbers in normal scientific notation just like you told me to. If you use exponential towers on the large numbers than you will also have to use it on small numbers such as 10^11. All of the numbers would thus have to be represented in exponential notation because consistency is also one of your rules when reffering to time periods. So scientific notation is not okay to use? Should I convert all the numbers using exponential towers? How do you know when to write a number in scientific notation, and when to write a number using exponential towers? You just told me to write everything in scientific notation so I did and now you are changing your mind? Please respond to this message. Thank You for your cooperation. Maldek ( talk) 03:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Is the black hole lifetime table (in the Heat death of the universe#The Black Hole Era, from 1040 years to 10100 years from now section) really necessary for this article? All that detail seems only tangentially related to the heat death. Moreover, the table borders on original research anyway because it's applying the cited equation (those numbers aren't in the cited source). ASHill ( talk | contribs) 19:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry I erased some important edits on the date of these theories but in order to undue many of the edits you made I had to undo all of them because if you have too many intermediate edits it won’t let you undo any of the earlier edits. The first thing I would like to bring up is that Spacepotatoe and I both agree on the Black Hole Chart. Actually it was Spacepotatoe’s idea in the first place to organize my data with into a chart. Spacepotatoe himself has found reliable research that is even more accurate than my data so he personally deserves credit for the exact dates of black hole disintegration. We all know all of Spacepotatoe’s sources are 100 percent scientifically accurate and reliable, so there is no arguing there. Spacepotatoe also deserves credit for adding the Coalescing of the Local Group which you erased. After Spacepotatoe added this new section on the Merging of the Local Group, I complemented the section with a new section that explained the process. This section was the Merging of the Milky Way and the Andromeda Galaxy, a sort of precursor to the Colascing of the Local Group. Then Spacepotatoe got 100 percent reliable sources and fixed my new section so that is 100 percent scientifically correct and appropriate for Wikipedia. So all 3 of the things you erased were approved by Spacepotatoe who used 100 percent scientifically accurate and reliable sources. Another thing is if you do not want the black hole chart, I can go back to the way I used the information before the Chart, which was creating a new section for each black hole mass. I could do that if you like, but I think you would like the chart displaying the black hole lifetimes more than my previous method, and I know for certain Spacepotatoe likes the Chart better since he created and pioneered it. Another thing is that Spacepotatoe has establisthed the correct lifetime for 20 trillion solar mass black holes at 1.7x 10^106 years. He has supplied 100 percent scientifically accurate and reliable sources for this figure. I know because originally I wrote 10^106 years for the lifetime of 20 trillion solar mass black holes and he told me about his perfect source that states 1.7x 10^106 years. So I would appreaciate it if you stopped changing the number to 10^100 years since it is not consistent with the article. Another thing is that you are erasing information about the Black Hole Era which both me and SpacePotatoe agree upon and, Spacepotatoe has once again supplied 100 percent scientifically accurate and reliable sources for it. So I would appreciate it if you stop erasing material from the article that has already been agreed upon by Spacepotaoe; Information which I support in firm belief of its 100 percent scientific accuracy and reliability. That is why I reverted the article back to the last edit by Spacepotatoe. Once again I am sorry I erased some important corrections that you made, but as I explained before in order to undo some of your earlier edits I had to undo your more recent edits because you cannot undo earlier edits if there are too many intermediate edits. Thank You for your cooperation. Thank You. Maldek ( talk) 04:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)