You won’t get any time off though, and will still have to go into work.

  • BananaOnionJuice@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    I won’t last more than 10^1.78 years from now, and the sun won’t last more than 10^9.78 years. That still leaves an unfathomable number of years until we get to 10^78

  • 1D10@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    Jesus fucking christ now I’m going to half to explain math and deep time to my mother and mother in law again.

    “1d10, I just read that the universe is ending soon”

    • BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      That’s my mom. I’ve spent a lot of time lately explaining what click-bait articles are, and how they have very misleading headlines, and you can’t just read the headline and think you know the story.

      We live in Florida, and I just showed her a headline that said that Disney was closing down the Hollywood Studios location, but they worded the headline without a “the” or “a”. - “Disney closes Hollywood Studios Location.” It sounds like Hollywood Studios is closing, a major development if true.

      But when you read the article, it isn’t “the” Hollywood Studios location that was shut down, it was “a” Hollywood Studios location that was shut down, an old tribute to animation exhibit, which is due to be replaced with an updated one. So not the entire Hollywood Studios, as the headline implied, just a small section of it.

      It wasn’t even a new story, the old location has been closed for years, and this replacement exhibit was announced a long time ago. So they ran a headline implying that an entire Disney theme Park was closing down, when they were just updating an exhibit, like they do every single day.

      She’s always telling me about a major corporate chain that is closing, because she read a misleading headline about how they are closing 10 stores, without mentioning that they are also opening 100, so it sounds like the chain is out of business. Every time we pass a Cracker Barrel, she wonders out loud when they are finally going to close down after she read that click-bait headline 3 years ago. I’m tired of explaining that one, so I just say I don’t know, I hate them, so I hope it’s soon.

    • BadlyDrawnRhino @aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      “I saw an article that said the universe is going to end in 10.78 years!” “10 to the power of 78, not 10 point 7 8…” “That’s what I said! That’s less than eleven years!”

      • teyrnon@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        10^78 years. 10.78 is known to be be almost 11 years, and a dumb way to express exponents even if it is done.

  • Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    This is all fringe science. It’s a new conjecture based on a controversial conjecture.

    Hopefully someone who understands this better can provide a deeper explanation. I recall at high level why the original paper was not widely accepted.

    The paper this is based on is not really hawking radiation because that requires an event horizon. They claimed gravity is enough which is extraordinary claim. Essentially redescribing something that can be more easily explained by other more widely accepted effects.

    • Sunflier@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      It depends on the loan. A regular loan will probably end, but a student loan isn’t even dischargable by the heat death of the universe. It even said so in paragraph 32.3(A)(18)[c] of the loan documents.

    • Doom@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      If current politics have taught me anything, it’s that we can just go to the universe next door and take their stuff.

      • T00l_shed@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        That’s what I want to think is correct, eventually it will all slam back into one point, triggering a new big bang. Rinse wash repeat

        • bss03@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          I think current measurements show expansion itself increasing, which means gravity is already too weak to decrease expansion and will continue getting weaker. There’s definitely open questions, but most current observations and models do not point toward the universe ever collapsing back to a single point.

          • Waraugh@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 month ago

            I would think the expansion force more likely to be limited in that it would eventually subside and gravitational pull take over. I don’t have any associated education or knowledge but I guess it feels intuitive to me that the explosive forces from the big Bang would eventually subside to a point gravitational pull, which to my understanding isn’t limited by distance, would start bringing everything back together. Obviously oversimplified because I’m dumb but I’m saying this to pose the question, does what you stated conflict with that possibility?

            • bss03@infosec.pub
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 month ago

              If expansion were caused by “explosive forces from the big Bang”, it’s rate would be decreasing, not increasing.

              Since current observations are inconsistent with that, we have to have a different (or at least additional) cause for expansion.

              As the universe expands, distances grow, but mass does not. This causes the overall force of gravity to decrease. This means gravity is “losing” and will never catch up. (Gravity is weakening and expansion is growing). But, if it the rate of expansion were decreasing, that would mean gravity was “winning”, and might continue “winning” until it could reverse expansion.

              • Waraugh@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 month ago

                But the rate of expansion would increase until a point where it no longer did? Are we somehow able to confidently assume we are past that point?

                • bss03@infosec.pub
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  If gravity could ever overcome expansion, then there would be some period where expansion was happening, but the rate of expansion was decreasing, eventually followed by expansion stopping, then contraction happening and the rate of contraction increasing. There would not be any period in which the rate of expansion was increasing.

                  (When you throw a ball up, after you release it, there’s a period of time when the ball is moving up, but it’s speed is decreasing, then it reaches the apex, and it start falling down and it’s speed increases until you catch it. There is no period where it upward speed increases.)

                  Current observations show not just that expansion continues, but that the rate of expansion is increasing.

                  (Not only has the big bang thrown the ball, but the ball’s upward speed is increasing.)