Talk:1 E19 s and more

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Time
Time Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Time, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Time on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Name

How about naming this page 1 E19 s and beyond?

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

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

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

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

[edit] Various

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Finite time

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

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

[edit] Contradiction

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

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

[edit] Iron-54

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

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

[edit] Longest finite time

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

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

[edit] moved merge proposals

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

 It has been suggested that this page or section be merged with 1 E-25 s, 1 E-24 s, 1 E-21 s, 1 E-18 s, 1 E-15 s, 1 E-12 s, 1 E-11 s, 1 E-10 s, 1 E-9 s, 1 E-8 s, 1 E-7 s, 1 E-6 s, 1 E-5 s, 1 E-4 s, Millisecond, 1 E-2 s, 1 E-1 s, 1 E0 s and 1 E1 s to form Time. (Discuss)
It has been suggested that this page or section be merged with 1 E2 s, Kilosecond, 1 E4 s, 1 E5 s, 1 E6 s, 1 E7 s, 1 E8 s, 1 E9 s, 1 E10 s, 1 E11 s, 1 E12 s, 1 E13 s, 1 E14 s, 1 E15 s, 1 E16 s, 1 E17 s, 1 E18 s, 1 E19 s and more, Orders of magnitude (time) and second to form Time. (Discuss)

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

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

[edit] Inconsistencies and Inaccuracies

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

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

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

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

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