How will history end? This shit literally cannot go on forever no matter your worldview
>>18670464We don't know, and we probably never will know, just as we don't know when it began. If it ends, it will likely happen so instantaneously we'll never be able to process it. Or, it will occur so far in the future we'll all be long gone
>>18670464History ends when I go to sleep and starts again when I wake up.
>>18670464If humanity is never able to successfully create self-sustaining space colonies, then eventually at some indeterminate point in the future, human civilization will simply stop working, either due to man-made or natural climate change that renders mass-scale agriculture impossible. Intelligent life will still exist but it will just be ooga booga. Then the sun will swallow up the Earth and whatever is left will die.If space colonies do happen, then there's no reason human civilization couldn't continue on indefinitely for quadrillions of years until the universe's heat death.
With the current trajectory, Post apocalyptical history most likely
>>18670464As before, so after. If this universe had a beginning, we have no reason to believe that whatever phenomena made it begin will not occur again after it ends, restarting the whole thing. I mean it happened once, why wouldnt it happen again? If this universe had no beginning, it probably wont vanish either since it already had an infinite amount of time before now to do so and it didnt. We are stuck here forever
>>18670464>no matter your worldviewWhat about those who go for a type of Einstein static eternal universe worldview?
>>18670464According to le science, the heat death of the universe. Followed by the big crunch.
>>18670586Those are two different things, if there is heat death, there isn't any useful energy to foment an implosion, so everything just stops, heat and energy (and work) are all the same fundamental thing measured by the exact same metrics, work and heat just describe particular ways that energy transfers between bodies and mediums.
humanity dies by either Camp of The Saints scenario (browns aren't human), or via natural disaster, be it a solar storm, an asteroid impact, or Sol frying us whenever it feels like it.Humans will go extinct regardless if we don't leave our solar system.
>>18670464some cosmologists posit that an unfathomably long time after the heat death of the universe, quantum fluctuations in space will eventually form enough virtual particles into real particles and start another Big Bang. We already know that virtual particles have a non-zero chance of becoming real particles
>>18670662Is it really accurate to call it heat death if there are still energized particles constantly popping in and out of frame?
>>18670662>We already know that virtual particles have a non-zero chance of becoming real particlesIn theory. Focus on proving virtual particles exist at all before predicting they will cause season 2 of the universe.
>>18670464Yes in the meantime we don’t want to live around browns
>>18670694So you want someone to explain the casimir effect to you?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect
>>18670705The Casimir effect can be formulated without invoking virtual particles. It's an evidence for quantum field theory, not virtual particles.
>>18670711>It's an evidence for quantum field theory, not virtual particles.Virtual particles are a key component of modern quantum field theory thanks in no small part to the casimir effect experiments, you might as well be saying that atomic microscopy is evidence of The Standard Model, not particles.
>>18670716>The Casimir effect can be formulated without invoking virtual particles
>>18670726Yea and all math can be formulated without using numbers, purely with exposition, but that doesn't mean it isn't based in math.
>>18670730The Casimir effect has been observed in experiments. Virtual particles have not.
>>18670737In the same way numbers haven't been observed to experimentally exist either since neither of those things are directly observable, but you can't do the experiments without depending on them and everything about the experiments infer their necessary existence.
>>18670745I think you got confused by heuristics using the word "virtual" when describing the Casimir effect. There are no virtual particles being inferred from observations of the Casimir effect. The fact of the matter is, you can describe the Casimir effect in a way that would match the observable predictions to a tee, without virtual particles being a part of the equation whatsoever. They're irrelevant to the effect and you got confused by the term "virtual" being used informally.
>>18670464There is probably a finite number of things and events that can happen, in which case, they can be combined finitely, which means that on a timeline long enough, it becomes an infinite loop, so what people call eternity is really an endless loop (which calls into question wether time really exists, or is it just how we percieve parts of the infinity that just is).
>>18670755>There are no virtual particles being inferred from observations of the Casimir effectThen what is causing the force?>you can describe the Casimir effect in a way that would match the observable predictions to a teeThe prediction is specifically based on the existence of virtual particles, though, and you can always describe things in other terms, its almost always what they do to dumb it down for children.>They're irrelevant to the effect and you got confused by the term "virtual" being used informally.They aren't, they are a key component of the calculations that instigated the experiment that proved the effect and nothing I have said has anything to do with misinterpreting the word virtual and this is a formal use of the word in a scientific experiment setting, you are just reaching because you don't have a valid argument.
>>18670464>This shit literally cannot go on forever Because you don't want it to, or because contemporary scientists sold you on the idea that all the energy in the universe tends towards entropy while also expecting you to believe that energy cannot be created or destroyed and only transferred from one state to another?I got bad news for you. In some strange aeons even entropy reverses, and this shit will go on and on and on for all time, like a concertina. As for humans? Each civilization that rises and falls is a single step on toward the infinite. We wrote our names on rock, then flame, then iron and then the atom. We'll write our name in entropy too, eventually. In time, we'll be the only thing to survive the end of the song in time for the next one. De Facto masters of the universe for the rest of eternity.
>>18670779>Then what is causing the force?A difference in the allowed vacuum-mode energies between configurations. This does not require treating virtual particles as real. The quantum field and the boundary conditions alter the field's stress/energy distribution, producing a measurable force. >The prediction is specifically based on the existence of virtual particles, though, and you can always describe things in other terms, its almost always what they do to dumb it down for children.So Casimir's original argument must have been the dumbed down for children version as it involved no virtual particles. Feynman diagrams and the current invokatin of virtual particles are an alternative framework, they aren't an independent experimental premise that the experiment confirmed. >They aren't, they are a key component of the calculations that instigated the experiment that proved the effect and nothing I have said has anything to do with misinterpreting the word virtual and this is a formal use of the word in a scientific experiment setting, you are just reaching because you don't have a valid argument.Then why is it possible to organize the calculations to include no virtual particles while leaving the observable predictions unchanged?
>>18670464Nobody knows, it's out of our scope of worthwhile concerns
>>18670799>treating virtual particles as real.This argument proves you were clearly the one projecting about being confused by other contexts for the term virtual.>involved no virtual particlesit involved the framework for what would become virtual particles, but the name came later.>Then why is it possible to organize the calculations to include no virtual particles while leaving the observable predictions unchanged?Same reason its possible to model particle calculations as either waves or point-particles, these modeling techniques were specifically designed to be widely applicable.
>>18670828No anon, we are still left with an observation which doesn't infer virtual particles, as they are not necessary for the prediction.
>>18670834No, you clearly don't understand what virtual particles are if you think they are observable and are concerned with them "being real".
>>18670662I’ve had this thought before. Given infinite time and space, anything that can happen will happen and more than once. There’s no reason to think the big bang can’t happen again.
>>18670476That's why it's called, his story. Without him nothing was made that has been made.
>>18670838Anon, the experiment is what's being observed, my point is that it doesn't infer the existence of virtual particles regardless of their observation, as they are not required for the calculation.The bottom line is there is no proof for the existence of anything that could reverse a heat death of the universe.
