[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 115 KB, 497x289, Screen Shot 2012-11-20 at 7.31.46 PM.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5373781 No.5373781[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

How can we survive total heat death? Could we possibly surround the planet in a protective shield that would keep it running in a fucked up universe? Could we survive on a space vessel? Could we jump to another universe?

>> No.5373784

>Heat death
>Do you even entropy

>> No.5373790

>>5373784
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe

>> No.5373803

This isn't some science fiction fantasy land, faggot.

>> No.5373801

Heat death isn't something extra that comes along and kicks us in the ass, once the universe reaches a trillion years old, it's just the ordinary laws of physics. Since all forms of energy will run down, any attempt to conserve and recycle energy will fail eventually, but we could last a lot longer by these means than without them (just like we could make fossil fuels last a lot longer if we conserved energy carefully).

On the other hand, if consciousness can be thought of as information, maybe we can still do infinite amounts of computation in spite of the heat death, i.e. just do it slower and slower as time goes by. This might require doing it in a highly distributed manner, so the computations would not resemble anything done by a Turing machine, but some weird distributed computation.

>> No.5373945

bump

>> No.5373962

Why not decrease the entropy around us?

>> No.5373968

heat death relates to the complete expenditure of work so no we couldnt because we would all be long dead before the universe died

>> No.5373972

>>5373962

because to decrease entropy at a local level you have to increase entropy at a universal level

source: i read a physics book this one time

>> No.5373976

We cant, unless current theories on statistics, energy, or entropy are fundamentally flawed.

But to humor you, jumping to another universe might help.

>> No.5373998

>>5373962
>Why not decrease the entropy around us?

Because entropy is a principle, not a force we can control.

>> No.5374003

>>5373781
You write like 'heat death' is something that we can stock up against.

It's not a cold winter -- it's billions of years.
Probably vastly more, if you expect to be able to collect dense energy sources.

>> No.5374004

>>5373962
Just because we can describe a principle of the universe doesn't mean it is under our control.

In fact, the more fundamental the principle, the less we can do about it.

Pi, for instance, has a specific value. We cannot change it. But that's what you are asking.

It sounds childish, like a grade-schooler who's seen too many sic-fi movies.

>> No.5374009

>>5373976
>But to humor you, jumping to another universe might help.


And it almost certainly would destroy all the matter that makes the jump.
There is every reason to assume another universe's rules wouldn't tolerate infusion or matter or energies from another state.

>> No.5374034

>>5374009
I'll humor you: What reasons?

>> No.5374046

>>5374034

Well, there is a specific set of constants that makes our universe what it is (like pi).
But the Big Bang (the eruption itself) doesn't require any of them; they were formed immediately after.

So there may be quite a range on some of those.
The speed of light, the Planck values, binding forces of atoms, gravitational force, nuclear binding... none of it seems to be necessary where it is.

So, sending a structure from our universe (assuming you can open and close the door without flooding either) might necessarily result in the destruction of either the matter/energy going in or the [local] universe on the other side.

>> No.5374089

My guess is actually that there is some error in thermodynamics and the universe does not end in heat death.

>> No.5374092

>>5374046
That's just speculation as well. And still (if want to have crazy phantasies), we could CREATE a universe and even overcome these problems.

>> No.5374101

>>5374009
Those bastards! Denying us entry like common serfs.

I'll tell the Americans that that universe is harboring terrorists. We'll be there in 30 years.

>> No.5374115

>>5374092
Of course it is speculation; there is no science for other universes.
But, I caution you: the definition of universe means it has to be separate.

There might be no 'investigating' another universe, nor even confirming we can create one.
Very definitely we cannot create one with specific properties (making it possible to transfer energy/matter/information) -- we don't have a single clue what is going on, as you just suggested!

>> No.5374128

>>5374092
I have read that some few imagined we could create a 'pocket' universe, which spawns out of our own and may therefore have very similar properties -- but it sounded to me like they just meant a cul-de-sac of our own, looped off with a trick of spatial geometry.

That would mean it would have nothing to show us differently except a drastic emptiness.

>> No.5374180

Will the current physical laws apply near/after heat death occurs? If not, there are a lot of possibilities.

>> No.5374198

>>5374180
There is no precipice that shows a change in physical laws,
but as the end nears, much of the universe would be degenerate matter and the stuff of particle physics, not much of macrocosmic matter left.

>> No.5374640

If I get an outer-space heater and some blankets, will I be good?

>> No.5374777

We won't need to, by the time it happens if we are still around we will have transcended our physical forms.

Duh.

>> No.5374779

>>5373781
Why do you people keep worrying about that when much much much sooner than that there won't be any star left in the universe. How do you plan on surviving without a star? Make your own? Good luck

>> No.5374799

>>5374777
That sounds interesting, but what form could survive the universal heat death?

>> No.5374802

>>5374779
That's exactly what I wonder: how will we survive?

>> No.5374833

>>5374802

We won't. Don't worry about it though, because humans wont even last long enough for it to be a problem for us.

>> No.5374865

>>5374833
You are probably right, but most of our problems can conceivably be overcome; we could stop global warming, we could stop aging and disease, we could move to another star system to survive the death of our sun, etc, etc. It seems to me like the last challenge would be heat death.

I'm not placing any bets that we will last that long, I'm just saying in theory we could survive quite a while.

>> No.5374866

First of all, I'd be more conscious of more current problems such as the Indian/Pakistan, Africa, and middle eastern oil kings. Second, don't be so attached to humanity. Why should I worry myself about the idea of all humans eventually dying out?

>> No.5374929

>>5374866
Why think about the India/Pakistan when I have to decide what to eat next?

>> No.5374948

We could significantly extend the habitability of the universe by limiting the scale and frequency of star formation.

>> No.5374950

if we surround the planet in a giant insulating material, then eventually the temperature in the planet will become uniform -- and it would still radiate.

We would die a heat death still. you cannot exist in a closed system and not eventually reach a ground state.

>> No.5374958

>>5374948
I like it, tell me more.

>> No.5374964

>>5374866

Because humans are a piece of the universe that has somehow become self-aware and capable of investigating itself. There may be others, even a great many others, but it's still a tiny, tiny portion of the whole universe. It is precious, and rare, and can accomplish things no other aspect of the universe can.

We are also capable of insights unique to ourselves, as we're all different, even if only slightly. What if some insights, some knowledge, some revelation is forever lost because there were no more humans around to conceive it? The universe would be poorer for it.

Do you find nothing about the world beautiful? Does nothing bring you joy? Do you love nothing? Do you not want these things to be preserved, and more things like it created?

>> No.5374968

>>5374958
Smaller stars fuse slower and have much longer lives relative to their larger counterparts.

>> No.5375066

>>5373968
but that's silly if applied on a universal scale since the universe doesn't care about work, it's a human construct regarding beneficial physical processes

you can't seriously tell me that everything will become so irretrievably spread out that no matter at all will ever again coalesce into interacting forms

the universe would literally have to be infinite for that to happen and then our big bang might be compared to a single firework on the fourth of july, it blooms then fizzles, but there is more than one firework, and the universe is an infinitely long showing of big bangs that sometimes rewinds themselves because everything is launched from a state of quantum genesis

there is no heat death of the universe, or rather, you are currently living within the heat death, the heat death has never ended and it technically has no beginning, neither will the creation of Bangs, we just need to survive on a semi-stable clump of energetic matter long enough to wander into the younger products of another Bang and eat their lack of entropy

oh wait, that's sort of like meta-galactic tyranids, or that new movie coming out in June

>> No.5375077

>>5375066
Wtf are you talking about?

>> No.5375111

>>5375077
we ride the Big Bangs into infinity, eating entire episodes of creation to fuel our unholy refutation of entropy

>> No.5375118

If we become able to travel back in time, and multiverse theory is correct, we can colonize Earth hundreds of millions of years ago. That won't eliminate us, but rather create a divergent timeline in which humans didn't naturally arise on Earth because it was invaded and settled by humans from an alternate future.

Then we just keep doing that forever.

>> No.5375135

>>5375111
Okay, and?

>> No.5375140

You don't avoid the waterfall by reversing the river. You do it by moving upstream.

>> No.5375145

>>5375135
heat death survived, multiple times

>> No.5375155
File: 158 KB, 736x721, 1324005332344.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5375155

>mfw intelligent life near the end of the universe will be huddled around dead, decaying white dwarfs and neutron stars to scrape energy from black body radiation in a desperate attempt to stay alive when the universe has almost literally died around them

>> No.5375164

>>5374004
Pi is a geometrical factor reliant on the definition of a circle, not a constant of the universe.
>>5374964
In his defense, the things he's worrying about now are much more immediate threats to human survival than the course of nature.
>>5375066
Work is defined as the change in energy. An expanding gas does work (with some assumptions on how the pressure changes)
I like the wikipedia article on the heat death. Eventually everything is sucked into black holes and radiated away as photons. Photons have a very small scattering cross section off each other, though of course pair production is still possible.

However they will eventually thermalize and be very low energy photons, then nothing too big will be pair produced (Considering that 1 electron volt is something like 10000 Kelvin).

So no, it doesn't require an infinitely large universe. Also at some point universal expansion will move everything not in the local area outside our light cone anyway.

>> No.5375167

>>5375118
I refuse to live in a world that is anything like the plot of Terra Nova.

>> No.5375173

>>5375155
They will have a much longer existence on their home planet than we do. The thermal gradients might even be high enough that their speed of life might approach ours.

>> No.5375175

>>5375155
OR Intelligent life bootstraps itself to a chain of Big Bangs and devours their potential work to sustain themselves before entropy can set in again
see >>5375066

They prey on young genesis events when civilizations are too planet-bound to resist. Genesis Vampires, they exist, and we are just young enough to make a good meal.

>> No.5375187

>>5375164
If the universe is not infinite, then things can eventually coalesce despite the overwhelmingly low probability, it just takes forever and a half to occur; which is fine when you merely need to wait in oblivion for your psychological profile to be reinstated - time flies in the blink between death and life. The problem is what you'll be waking up to.

>> No.5375205

>>5375187
Macroscopic systems do not evolve grossly away from equilibrium without the influx of energy. Anything created from vacuum has a lifetime dictated by the uncertainty principle. Meanwhile, the universe continues to expand and cools as it does so.

We have no contradicting observation, thus no reason to believe otherwise will happen.