The Ultimate War

[Brabbit1987]

Whatever you might have heard, the Universe is very finite and likewise contains a limited amount of material. And that matter is irrevocably evolving into a lower energy state with more chaos in its distribution. In the end, all that there will be left will be a tenuous mist of mildly warm, nonreactive fusion products and the last dwarf stars. And then the last white dwarf will cool down.

Rune. Entropy rules.

This all depends on what theory you use. This isn't something that is absolute fact just yet.

[Holo]

The universe cannot end, at least not truly, because it is ever expanding.

If there's no life left to observe the universe, can you really say it still exists?

[Rune]

The universe cannot end, at least not truly, because it is ever expanding.

But it can become a cold difuse cloud of 98% helium without visible light sources and waning IR ones. Then it sort of goes on asymptotically towards absolute zero.

This all depends on what theory you use. This isn't something that is absolute fact just yet.

I believe all infinite universe theories have been discredited and/or fringe science to begin with, and the energy levels at the big bang are actually calculated to a rather precise range (so we have a rough estimate on the actual weight of the universe), but if you know of any one in particular, please enlighten me. Because the mainstream theories all predict a cold starless universe in the far future.

Rune. But don't worry, it won't happen tomorrow.

[Rune]

And in that meantime, that white dwarf will become the single most valuable location in the universe.

Kind of. I would be mining Hydrogen like crazy to run fusion reactors, those may last longer, but at certain tech levels, who knows? They might find more use for the stuff black holes spew out when stuff falls inside. But still, ultimately, all real state is limited. And self-replicating stuff tends to grow exponentially. If the factor is high enough, and you add time to the mix...

Rune. At this point, reading "The last question" by Isaac Asimov is kind of mandatory.

[KOCOUR]

Hmm i thougth that theory of entropy was discarded long ago (80´s i think?). Yet it seems some people still believe in it.

But iam only simple Mechanical engineer, my knowledge of universe related sciences is limited.

Can anyone point me to the right literature?

[Rune]

Hmm i thougth that theory of entropy was discarded long ago (80´s i think?). Yet it seems some people still believe in it.

But iam only simple Mechanical engineer, my knowledge of universe related sciences is limited.

Can anyone point me to the right literature?

I don't know what you mean by "that theory of entropy", but here you go. You should know this by heart, BTW.

[KOCOUR]

There was theory that said that all the energi is consumed by something that the author called enthropy. But then someone else stated that it is nonsence, cause no energi is consumed, just changed. Forexample: mechanical energi changet to electrical, electrical changed to thermal and so on.

[Holo]

There was theory that said that all the energi is consumed by something that the author called enthropy. But then someone else stated that it is nonsence, cause no energi is consumed, just changed. Forexample: mechanical energi changet to electrical, electrical changed to thermal and so on.

It's changed until it's evenly distributed around the universe, so no work can be got from it (second law of thermodynamics). Not destroyed, just changed so that it's unusable.

[KOCOUR]

Yeah maybe something like that. Dont know. never needed that knowledge since finished school.

[Rune]

Yeah maybe something like that. Dont know. never needed that knowledge since finished school.

It just serves to understand the universe. To put it simply, it is a measure of disorder. In a closed system, it can only rise (that is the second law of thermodynamics, basically). So the universe tends to evolve to a state of maximum disorder and minimum energy (energy as in potential energy). That ends eventually with every atom in its lowest energy state, and all potential energy turned to unusable heat. In other words, the second law tells you why opening the fridge to cool the kitchen is stupid, or why will the stars die.

Rune. I don't know how you passed thermodynamics, but I want to study there.

[Brabbit1987]

I believe all infinite universe theories have been discredited and/or fringe science to begin with, and the energy levels at the big bang are actually calculated to a rather precise range (so we have a rough estimate on the actual weight of the universe), but if you know of any one in particular, please enlighten me. Because the mainstream theories all predict a cold starless universe in the far future.

My point is all of them are theories. Theories don't mean fact. Theories change all the time as more information is known. The infinite universe theory was not disproved entirely. With current data we gathered it is just simply unlikely. Again though, we still don't even know much about it and things can easily change. We have had theories of earth being the center ... once more info was found .. we learned we where wrong. Actually we are wrong more then we are right, but we do eventually tend to get to the answer. Scientists work to disprove their theories everyday.

Though scientists do believe our current scientific method model is out of date. Apparently they feel, that we need to come up with something better, though I am not really sure how that is possible.

Edited May 23, 2013 by Brabbit1987

[Holo]

If you find a way to break conservation of mass, you can speak against it. Right now, every observation ever made by any scientist anywhere has been at least consistent with the second law of thermodynamics, otherwise it would have been revised.

[Brabbit1987]

If you find a way to break conservation of mass, you can speak against it. Right now, every observation ever made by any scientist anywhere has been at least consistent with the second law of thermodynamics, otherwise it would have been revised.

What does that have anything to do with what I said? I didn't say all theories "can" be disproved. I said scientists "try" to disprove them everyday. It's part of science. Also, a theory can be disproved at any stage, no matter how unlikely. It has happened in the past. It stands to reason it can likely happen again.

A good analogy would be even if things seem solid, if you take a closer look those solid objects actually look more hollow. Things are not always as they appear. No matter how sure, new information can easily disprove it. The universe continues to shock scientists even today, because it didn't match up to what they thought it would be.

[Jokurr]

Though scientists do believe our current scientific method model is out of date. Apparently they feel, that we need to come up with something better, though I am not really sure how that is possible.

Which scientists are these?

Also the blatant misuse of the word “theory†in a scientific application in this thread irks me greatly.

[Brabbit1987]

Which scientists are these?

Also the blatant misuse of the word “theory†in a scientific application in this thread irks me greatly.

Read http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/04/whats-wrong-with-the-scientific-method/

I could also find the scishow youtube video on it.

Oh and I don't feel I have misused the theory word. I do realize scientific theories are not easily disproved as they tend to have substantial evidence to back them up. However, that doesn't mean they can't be. Also scientists try to disprove them all the time. We can talk about the multiverse theory, but no one knows if it's actually true or not. Some theories can be improved, some can be disproved. If I am using it wrong still, please explain it to me, so I may learn :3.

Edited May 23, 2013 by Brabbit1987

[Jokurr]

I'm not sure if I fully agree with the article. A lot of the comments mention how the examples actually further prove just how useful the scientific method is. The comment by "Kelvis Ymeri" about 6 comments down explains this quite well.

I will agree with the author on the note that the way the scientific method is often taught in schools/universities is not the best, and often far too rigid. Too often the emphasis seems to be getting to the right answer, not how you got there. Did your conclusion not match your hypothesis? Well then go back and fudge the data until it does. I was guilty of this myself in university. After doing a 3 hour lab, you get data that appears wrong. What do you do? Get the data from someone else who did the lab earlier and got full marks. Instead, greater emphasis should be placed on analyzing what may have caused your data to appear the way it did, and that doesn't fall outside of the scientific method.

[Jokurr]

Oh and I don't feel I have misused the theory word. I do realize scientific theories are not easily disproved as they tend to have substantial evidence to back them up. However, that doesn't mean they can't be. Also scientists try to disprove them all the time. We can talk about the multiverse theory, but no one knows if it's actually true or not. Some theories can be improved, some can be disproved. If I am using it wrong still, please explain it to me, so I may learn :3.

The idea of a multiverse that you refer to is not a scientific theory, it is a hypothesis. Labeling it as a scientific theory is incorrect. Scientists do not constantly work to disprove theories, because if it is a scientific theory, then it is already scientific fact and cannot be disproved. At best, it may be an incomplete picture and what scientists are seeking to do is fill in the gaps.

[Brabbit1987]

The idea of a multiverse that you refer to is not a scientific theory, it is a hypothesis. Labeling it as a scientific theory is incorrect. Scientists do not constantly work to disprove theories, because if it is a scientific theory, then it is already scientific fact and cannot be disproved. At best, it may be an incomplete picture and what scientists are seeking to do is fill in the gaps.

"Theory

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.

Example: It is known that on June 30, 1908 in Tunguska, Siberia, there was an explosion equivalent to the detonation of about 15 million tons of TNT. Many hypotheses have been proposed for what caused the explosion. It is theorized that the explosion was caused by a natural extraterrestrial phenomenon, and was not caused by man. Is this theory a fact? No. The event is a recorded fact. Is this this theory generally accepted to be true, based on evidence to-date? Yes. Can this theory be shown to be false and be discarded? Yes."

You assume a scientific theory can't be disproved. a Hypothesis turns into a scientific theory when it cannot be disproved currently. That doesn't mean it can never be disproved.

I'm not sure if I fully agree with the article. A lot of the comments mention how the examples actually further prove just how useful the scientific method is. The comment by "Kelvis Ymeri" about 6 comments down explains this quite well.

I will agree with the author on the note that the way the scientific method is often taught in schools/universities is not the best, and often far too rigid. Too often the emphasis seems to be getting to the right answer, not how you got there. Did your conclusion not match your hypothesis? Well then go back and fudge the data until it does. I was guilty of this myself in university. After doing a 3 hour lab, you get data that appears wrong. What do you do? Get the data from someone else who did the lab earlier and got full marks. Instead, greater emphasis should be placed on analyzing what may have caused your data to appear the way it did, and that doesn't fall outside of the scientific method.

No matter what, there will always be cases the current model can't be used. Such as the multiverse theory. How do you go about testing that? How can you use the current model on this theory? Or hypothesis rather as you pointed out.

Edited May 23, 2013 by Brabbit1987

[Rune]

My point is all of them are theories. Theories don't mean fact. Theories change all the time as more information is known. The infinite universe theory was not disproved entirely. With current data we gathered it is just simply unlikely. Again though, we still don't even know much about it and things can easily change. We have had theories of earth being the center ... once more info was found .. we learned we where wrong. Actually we are wrong more then we are right, but we do eventually tend to get to the answer. Scientists work to disprove their theories everyday.

Though scientists do believe our current scientific method model is out of date. Apparently they feel, that we need to come up with something better, though I am not really sure how that is possible.

And using that as an argument is irritating and very unproductive. Following that chain of thought, this entire debate is no more of a fact. After all, what other proof of its existence do you have other than you believe you are reading it on a computer. Come to think of it, how come you accept you own existence as a fact? As far as I know, that is not proven either. Fortunately there is such a thing as scientific consensus.

Rune. And don't worry, I'm almost certain you exist.

Edited May 23, 2013 by Rune

[Brabbit1987]

And using that as an argument is irritating and very unproductive. Following that chain of thought, this entire debate is no more of a fact. After all, what other proof of its existence do you have other than you believe you are reading it on a computer. Come to think of it, how come you accept you own existence as a fact? As far as I know, that is not proven either. Fortunately there is such a thing as scientific consensus.

Rune. And don't worry, I'm almost certain you exist.

I really have no idea what you are talking about now.

But to answer your question about existence. I don't consider it fact I exist actually. However, that goes well beyond the scope of this topic. So I will not get into it :3 I will just say, jsut because I don't find it fact .. doesn't mean there isn't a more likely choice.

In other words, I believe I exist, but I certainly can't call it fact.

Edited May 23, 2013 by Brabbit1987

[Mrluap]

Yes Civilizations at that level have probably already transcended what we know as "Humanity" And exist at a higher level of being, maybe even "Godlike". Maybe war would take a different form?

[Jokurr]

"Theory

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.

Example: It is known that on June 30, 1908 in Tunguska, Siberia, there was an explosion equivalent to the detonation of about 15 million tons of TNT. Many hypotheses have been proposed for what caused the explosion. It is theorized that the explosion was caused by a natural extraterrestrial phenomenon, and was not caused by man. Is this theory a fact? No. The event is a recorded fact. Is this this theory generally accepted to be true, based on evidence to-date? Yes. Can this theory be shown to be false and be discarded? Yes."

You assume a scientific theory can't be disproved. a Hypothesis turns into a scientific theory when it cannot be disproved currently. That doesn't mean it can never be disproved.

You put the first part of your post in quotation marks, are you quoting that from somewhere? Anyway, I think you are underestimating how much proof is needed for a hypothesis to become a theory. I don't think an explanation for the Tunguska explosion counts as a scientific theory. That was a one time event, not a repeatable experiment. From wikipedia:

A body of descriptions of knowledge is usually only called a theory if it has fulfilled these criteria:

It makes falsifiable predictions with consistent accuracy across a broad area of scientific inquiry (such as mechanics).

It is well-supported by many independent strands of evidence, rather than a single foundation. This ensures that it is probably a good approximation, if not completely correct.

It is consistent with pre-existing theories and other experimental results. (Its predictions may differ slightly from pre-existing theories in cases where they are more accurate than before.)

It can be adapted and modified to account for new evidence as it is discovered, thus increasing its predictive capability over time.

It is among the most parsimonious explanations, sparing in proposed entities or explanations. (See Occam's razor. Since there is no generally accepted objective definition of parsimony, this is not a strict criterion, but some theories are much less economical than others.)

An explanation for the Tunguska explosion doesn't really fit in with the second point, as that was a one time event.

Like I mentioned earlier theories are often incomplete, or as the wikipedia article put it "not completely correct", but that isn't to say it is incorrect or flat out wrong. Theories can expand or grow when phenomenons they did not account for are discovered, but that is different from being disproved outright.

No matter what, there will always be cases the current model can't be used. Such as the multiverse theory. How do you go about testing that? How can you use the current model on this theory? Or hypothesis rather as you pointed out.

You can't test it, which is exactly why it remains a hypothesis. Only once there is some way of testing that hypothesis can it become a theory.

EDIT: Another interesting wikipedia article I just stumbled upon. I will concede theories can be disproved, though this is an extremely rare event. The original point I was trying to get across still stands, the use of the word theory in this thread was not correct in a scientific context. Nor is an explanation for the Tunguska explosion a theory.

Edited May 24, 2013 by Jokurr

[Brabbit1987]

Yes Civilizations at that level have probably already transcended what we know as "Humanity" And exist at a higher level of being, maybe even "Godlike". Maybe war would take a different form?

Now that I can agree with. maybe war wouldn't even involve death at all. Maybe it takes some form similar to Olympic games. Maybe it takes form of some intellectual argument till an agreement is made?

Also if we are talking about resources, why would they go to war which would have the potential to destroy the resources of which they are fighting over (Assuming something like this ever actually does occur)? I believe they would be smarter then this.

[Brabbit1987]

You put the first part of your post in quotation marks, are you quoting that from somewhere? Anyway, I think you are underestimating how much proof is needed for a hypothesis to become a theory. I don't think an explanation for the Tunguska explosion counts as a scientific theory. That was a one time event, not a repeatable experiment. From wikipedia:

An explanation for the Tunguska explosion doesn't really fit in with the second point, as that was a one time event.

Like I mentioned earlier theories are often incomplete, or as the wikipedia article put it "not completely correct", but that isn't to say it is incorrect or flat out wrong. Theories can expand or grow when phenomenons they did not account for are discovered, but that is different from being disproved outright.

You can't test it, which is exactly why it remains a hypothesis. Only once there is some way of testing that hypothesis can it become a theory.

Type this into google "what is a scientific theory"

http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html

"A scientific theory is not the end result of the scientific method; theories can be proven or rejected, just like hypotheses."

http://www.nebscience.org/theory.html

"Yes, a scientific theory can be wrong, as shown by experiment or observation, since one of its hypotheses might be wrong or the reasoning might be flawed or new data might come along that disagree with it."

It seems the world disagrees with you, or you are not understanding it. A scientific theory has a lot of evidence to back it up. But yes it can still be proved to be wrong.

I tend to skip wiki, because I can find the same information from more reliable places, which will save me the hassle of looking for what is wrong in the wiki.

Now if you want, I can keep looking pulling more and more proof that I am not wrong.

EDIT: Another interesting wikipedia article I just stumbled upon. I will concede theories can be disproved, though this is an extremely rare event. The original point I was trying to get across still stands, the use of the word theory in this thread was not correct in a scientific context. Nor is an explanation for the Tunguska explosion a theory.

Yes .. no .. you are right it was being used wrong for the most part. I agree.

Edited May 24, 2013 by Brabbit1987

[Jokurr]

To reiterate my previous post I accept that theories can be outright disproved. Though the multiverse is still not a theory. We were both wrong .