[ art / civ / cult / cyb / diy / drg / feels / layer / lit / λ / q / r / sci / sec / tech / w / zzz ] archive provided by lainchan.jp

lainchan archive - /sci/ - 2



File: 1475817282096.png (92.04 KB, 245x300, tumblr_ne7x9uRY0C1t9tak1o1_400.jpg)

No.2

How will the Universe end, lainons?
From what I've heard, it seems the leading theory at the moment is universal expansion to the point that atoms could not be- though there are arguments against this and many alternate ideas. End of the Universe general

  No.6

>How will the Universe end, lainons?
Not with a (big) bang but a whimper, to quote a certain someone.
>End of the Universe general
/sci/ board was a mistake

  No.8


  No.19

Heat death, dispersion... Everything will burn out there will be nothing left to fuse, all particles will be scattered so far (assuming "space" is infinite) that there will be statistically zero matter in a given region of space. Thus the universe will be ended.

  No.20

>>19
Though, time and space will continue to exist or?

  No.23

>>20
I don't time and space will have any meaning at that point.

What is space if there is nothing in it?

What is time, when there is no change?

With no point of reference or measure neither concept makes sense.

  No.25

the universe ends when you do
it's all up to you, lainon

  No.27

>>19
you forgot to account for black holes, dummy

  No.30

Expending all energy then collapsing into itself, big bang repeat

  No.31

>>25
I have a special plan for this world.

  No.32

>>27
Actually, Hawking radiation takes care of black holes. Sure, they'll be the last to go, but they're also ending at some point.

  No.41

>>32
interesting. how would it eliminate the black holes?

  No.67

>>41
Well, Hawking radiation is the process in which black holes emit thermal radiation. Since they aren't infinite, they eventually spend all of it. Interestingly, the smaller the black hole is, the more radiation it emits, meaning that the really big ones are going to last for extremely large amounts of time with barely any change. As far as I know, we're not really going to see any black holes die, unless we find some really tiny ones, since it takes a really, really long time.

  No.70

>>27
Hawking radiation will cause black holes to dissipate eventually I believe.

  No.71

>>70
My bad, didnt finish reading thread. sage errywhere

  No.79

Eventually things will drift far enough apart that they can't interact anymore. Especially if the expansion of the universe is accelerating.

  No.125

>>79
bullsoykaf. everything is always affected by gravity, no matter the distance.

  No.132

>>125
gravity can only move at the speed of light. The universe expands at a rate such that two points move apart faster the farther away they are. Due to the fact that space itself is expanding, it is perfectly possible that two points are moving apart from each other faster than the speed of light. The point at which this happens is called the hubble radius, and it's about 14 billion light years I think.

There is evidence that the expansion of space itself is accelerating too, which would mean that eventually two points any appreciable distance apart would have relative velocities faster than the speed of light. This scenario is called the big rip.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space if you want to learn more.

  No.151

>>125
>bullsoykaf. everything is always affected by gravity, no matter the distance.
There seems to be a force stronger than gravity at work:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy

  No.156

When the last perceiving entity vanishes.

  No.157

>>156
Why is that important? And what makes a 'perceiving entity' different from any other blob of matter/energy?

  No.158

>>157
Who says that there is a difference? Are we not blobs of matter/energy? A blob of matter/energy could also perceive a universe or a reality. What i want to express is just my concern that maybe a consciousness is needed to create the universe and the reality. Maybe the universe started with the first consciousness and maybe it ends with the last one. Where that came from, who knows. I read a book called "Biocentrism: How Life and Consciousness are the Keys to Understanding the True Nature of the Universe" by Robert Lanza and the authour proposes the idea that life and consciousness creates everything. I hope this is not off topic. I would appreciate it if someone could highlight some logical flaws with his theories or with biocentrism itself in case somebody is informed on this topic.

  No.159


  No.160

>>157
Is there any meaningful difference between the universe not existing and nobody being around to experience it? How would you distinguish the two cases?

  No.161

>>160
Basically this rests on what you think delineates something from existing or not existing. Physics has absolutely nothing to say on this -- something exists only if it's observed, yes, but 'obervation' can come from a photon or electron or something.

So, there are two basic ways you can go about this: you can say that what exists really exists, and we're just seeing it. This is entirely consistent whith Physics, because as things in the universe of course we can interact with other things and thus observe them. The other way(which I think you're going for) is to claim that there is no independent reality of what we as beings perceive. The biggest problem I have with that is, of something exists to perceive things into existence, how does that thing exist? What perceives it? Is it possible for something to spontaneously come into existence by just perceving itself?

All these questions and more make the perception-based view of existence much less teneble than the reality-based one(that is, the universe exists because it exists).

  No.162

>>161
You think "the universe exists because it exists" is a fundamentally better position than "a perceiver exists because it exists"?

  No.163

>>162
yes, because the universe doesn't have to be part of the universe but a perceiver does.

  No.165

File: 1477238410356.png (68.87 KB, 200x95, quote-it-isn-t-necessary-to-imagine-the-world-ending-in-fire-or-ice-there-are-two-other-possibilities-frank-zappa-32-43-52.jpg)


  No.167

>>157
I would not distinguish them. The universe would not exist because nothing is experiencing it.
>>161
Thats the big problem. Something must have started it. Maybe there is an observer. Maybe its just set up like that. Maybe this universe or reality is just a membrane our biological bodies produce or an egg whose shell we break one day. We suddenly arrive here and sometimes just as suddenly leave. Where does consciousness come from? What about long term memory storage? I think we are far more than just heaps of biological matter if only 1 percent of what i`ve experienced or read is true.

  No.169

>>167
>The universe would not exist because nothing is experiencing it.

So, your definition of existence requires that something is experiencing it. But for that something to experience it, that something must in turn be experienced.

Bringing it back into the topic of this thread, at what point can you say that you've run out of observers? Do observers always stop observing by some phenomenon?

>Where does consciousness come from? What about long term memory storage?


dunno about consciousness, and that's something that can't really be proven rigorously. But long-term memory storage is easy enough. We can even emulate it with little disks of magnetic material.

>I think we are far more than just heaps of biological matter if only 1 percent of what i`ve experienced or read is true.


but why?

  No.170

>>163
if the universe doesn't "have" to be part of the universe, then why does a perciever?

  No.172

>>170
Well, the universe is a thing in itself, right? But a perceiver must exist to perceive, and it in turn must be perceived.

They're both weak arguments, so it's essentially whether or not you believe in the existence of God(The "original perceiver") or not.

  No.174

>>172
>the universe is a thing in itself
>But a perceiver must exist to perceive
and so, the universe must exist to exist.

>But a perceiver must exist to perceive

>and it in turn must be perceived
to percieve does not require being percieved by another or oneself.

>They're both weak arguments

yes, they are.

>it's essentially whether or not you believe in the existence of God

why would you call God into this? he did nothing wrong, right?

  No.175

>>174
>and so, the universe must exist to exist.

yes, thus making a very nice tautology.

>to percieve does not require being percieved by another or oneself.


This part I don't get. Things can perceive without existing? How does that work?

>why would you call God into this?


Berkeley basically had the same philosophy as you, and he claimed that God was something like the 'original perceiver'

  No.181

>>167

>The universe would not exist because nothing is experiencing it.

If a tree falls and no one hears it, does it make a sound?

  No.201

>>181
i have an easy answer. the tree makes a sound, yet no one is around to hear it.

  No.202

>>175
>This part I don't get

his statement that
>it in turn must be perceived
is false, as the act of perceiving does not require being perceived by another, nor does existing, for that matter. if you look at a tree, does that mean that the tree, or anything, is looking at you?

  No.208

>>167
I don't really get what are your base assumptions, but I'd be interested in your experiences and what created this thought process for you.

Also, to clear up what seems to be a bit of a misunderstanding in this thread, in physics, and observer isn't a being with consciousness or anything, any separate particle can be one.

  No.214

>>202
> the act of perceiving does not require being perceived by another, nor does existing, for that matter.

But you said earlier:
>>167
>>The universe would not exist because nothing is experiencing it.

So, is it that the universe must be perceived to exist, or not? Or does your statement boil down to "it is not neccessary to be perceived for something to be perceived"?

> if you look at a tree, does that mean that the tree, or anything, is looking at you?


But I exist, so something must be perceiving me. What that something is I don't know.

>>208
it's more of a philosophical question than a physical one, I think. But, yes, if you differentiate between conscious and unconscious things in your thinking you have to clearly deliniate what the difference between those is.

  No.221

>>214
To clear up your confusion: 202 and 167 is not the same poster.
>>201
I do not think that the tree makes a sound, there will be air pressure, but no sound, as a body who can hear is needed who perceives the air pressure and presents this information as sound to your brain. You would have to hear to perceive the sound. When nothing has the ability to hear there should not be sound. This goes off topic i fear.
>>208
My experiences would be better placed in feels than in sci.

  No.228

>>221
That does clear up significant confusion.

  No.274

>>221
>This goes off topic i fear.
of course not. your definition of sound depends on whether there is a body to "hear" it. mine doesn't, so i suppose the answer is subjective based on your definition of the word.