Talk:1 E19 s and more

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Time (Rated List-Class)

Time portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Time, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Time on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

List This page is not an article and does not require a rating on the quality scale.

Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

1 Name 2 Various 3 Finite time 4 Contradiction 5 Iron-54 6 Longest finite time 7 moved merge proposals 8 This information, especially towards the later dates, very much conflicts with Nova's predictions and these sources seem outdated 9 Inconsistencies and Inaccuracies 10 Brahma lives for 311 trillion, 40 billion years 11 How can planets deattach from stars in 10^15 years if all the stars are gone in 10^14 years? 12 So many inconsistencies 13 Official Large number Page 14 Justification of Large Number Names 15 Edits A 16 Edits B 17 Earth's fate

[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"]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

took me a few mins to think about the last number, it nearly drove me mad. â€”Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.42.83.77 (talk) 01:12, 21 August 2008 (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.
â€”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)? â€”The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.57.245.11 (talk â€¢ 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 Ã— 10²² years â€“ estimated half-life of iron-54

That's simply untrue: iron-54 is stable. Some sources quote a lower limit on the order of 10^22.5 years, but that's not an estimated half-life. In fact, it's consistent with stability.
â€”Herbee 06:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Longest finite time

This time (10^10^76 years) â€¦ 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.
â€”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.. â€”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 10^{10^76} 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.

[edit] Brahma lives for 311 trillion, 40 billion years

Here are my sources for Brahmaâ€™s 311 trillion, 40 billion year lifespan. I have many sources but if you would like more I could get thousands more just ask. Thank You.

http://vedabase.net/bg/8/17/en1

http://hinduism.iskcon.com/concepts/111.htm

http://www.kanglaonline.com/index.php?template=printkshow&kid=910

http://www.hindunet.org/srh_home/1997_12/0006.html

http://www.bookrags.com/wiki/Hindu_units_of_measurement

http://www.experiencefestival.com/kalki-avatara

http://www.utahkrishnas.com/main/page.asp?id=999

http://www.holloworbs.com/daitya.htm

http://www.experiencefestival.com/years

http://www.deepmusic.org/essence.htm

http://namahatta.org/en/node/6996

http://bhagavadgitaasitis.com/8/17/en1

http://www.krishna.org/sudarsana/archive/mail/msg00008.html

http://www.krishna.org/sudarsana/archive/mail/msg00005.html

http://experiencefestival.com/treta_yuga/page/2

http://experiencefestival.com/yuga/page/2

http://www.newtalavana.org/bhaktivrksha/week-35.htm

http://members.fortunecity.com/bala595/hindu.htm

http://www.yoga-philosophy.com/eng/kala.htm

http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/soph/sopsml05.htm

http://www.theosophy.com/theos-talk/200607/tt00447.html

http://www.theosophy.com/theos-talk/200212/tt00702.html Maldek (talk) 01:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

There are four problems;

firstly (the obvious) is that isn't the end of BrahmÄ but just one instantiation. After another delay BrahmÄ is back, thus it isn't an end at all. The other is that the sources you list (the "shotgun" approach to sources which you have done many times before I might add) feel dubious in that they repeat the same number so it appears to be magic pixie dust. The Theosophical Society is probably the more reliable of the lot but be nice to have one source that we can trust in that it provides strong evidence that the number is true. Also the list is in order of magnitude so should be after the 200 Trillion date not stuck at the top. The real problem though is that BrahmÄ is part of a mythology and so is supernatural. It doesn't follow clearly that supernatural claims should be intermingled with conjectured natural phenomena.

There are three approachs;

- we adopt a form of NOMA (NOnoverlapping MAgisteria) and do not bother placing BrahmÄ here as it isn't relevant to the facts and reality of the Universe or

-we place BrahmÄ here but in separate list.

-Alternatively we ignore NOMA (which I do not like anyway) and simply demand that the figure can be shown how it can be falsified; if falsifiability cannot be shown then it's no different from any fictional number that people invent and need not be in this list. Ttiotsw (talk) 08:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

OK Got rid of this fiction. It's been tagged for a year. The above so-called references are crap. Ttiotsw (talk) 17:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Got rid of it again. Please provide here a reference we can use. I'm not interested in trawling through a hundred and one fan-sites for Brahma. I want to see a scientific paper from a reliable source that claims this. Ttiotsw (talk) 09:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

And AGAIN. Just after one reference, please. Ttiotsw (talk) 06:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] So many inconsistencies

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

[edit] Official Large number Page

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

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

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

Odd how "Googolquadraplex" on that page gets 1 hit in Google to just that page !. I guess it *must* be Official....or it's spelt wrong. I see now, the official page spells it Googolquadraplex whereas all the other few hundred unofficial pages spell it Googolquadriplex. Must be something to do with trademarks, or, unless, that page isn't as official as it is made out to be or it really should be called a Googolquadraplex. Ttiotsw (talk) 06:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no official source for the names of numbers above a vigintillion (10⁶³ short scale, 10¹²⁰ long scale) or thereabouts. Spacepotato (talk) 23:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Also the names of large numbers are rarely used actually according to Wikipedia the "Names of numbers larger than a quadrillion are almost never used" (my bold). Truthfully other than thousand and million, and maybe billion and trillion, we should also never use these names here. I'd also avoid billion and trillion. Ttiotsw (talk) 06:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Justification of Large Number Names

Okay just got the message and was asked to justify the use of large number names. Thank you very much for notifying me. First of all you may be right that using exponents is a better way of representing relativiely large numbers. The point is I am still keeping the exponents in there so that everyone can easily refer to it but in addition I am giving scientific names in addition. Numbers up to 10^3003 (One Millillion) are commonly used. Above One Millillion are names of numbers that are not commonly used as you may have seen in the source I gave you. Up to a Millillion (10^3003) you will find everywhere but numbers above that can still be found in many places but they may not be listed in encyclopedias. The point is I am not taking away the exponets and I am not listing any names of numbers above 10^3003, heck not even close to 10^3003. I just felt I should add something to it. Another thing is that I think exponents do confuse people. The thing is that before I started editing this article I was confused because of so many inconsistencies within the article. As you can see I have added many questions on the discussion page in an attempt to understand these apparent inconsistencies. After a while none of my questions were answered so I did extensive research on the subject matter to find out the truth. After a few weeks I got the answers to my questions. I have already discussed all of the changes on the talk page but for those weeks nobody was interested in this article or what I had to say, so I took it upon myself to improve this article. As I just mentioned I have notifed this on the discussion page. I do understand that there are no quotes in the article supplied by me, but that is because I do not know how to put quotes in the article. I mean I know how to do it, but I donâ€™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 URLâ€™s of the two plagiarized articles. This is the original article plagiarized by the Wikipedia article Heat death of the Universe http://www.tripatlas.com/Heat_death_of_the_universe

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

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

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

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

Spacepotato (talk) 01:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Justification of Large Number Names

Justification of Large Number Names

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

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

The articles you list are copied from Wikipedia (mirrored) The bizarre names are vary rarely to never used. They are fringe. Ttiotsw (talk) 08:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edits A

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

[edit] Edits B

The source of the low estimate of 10¹² years until star formation ends is not Dyson. Rather, it is Adams and Laughlin (A dying universe: the long-term fate and evolution of astrophysical objects, Reviews of Modern Physics 69, #2 (April 1997), pp. 337â€“372. Bibcode: 1997RvMP...69..337A. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.69.337), section IID. Adams and Laughlin likewise give the lifetime of low-mass red dwarfs as between 10¹³ and 2Ã—10¹³ years, in section IIA. The source for galaxies outside the Local Supercluster eventually no longer being detectable, ApJ 531, 22 [1], gives 2Ã—10¹² years as the time until this happens.

Spacepotato (talk) 01:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Re 1: This edit summary claims that Dyson's citation was given, apparently for the 10¹⁴ year figure for the end of star formation. However, there is no Dyson citation in that edit. Even if there were, Dyson's 1979 back-of-the-envelope calculation is less accurate and less current than the 1997 paper by Adams & Laughlin. â€”Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 02:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Earth's fate

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

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