Live data from Hacker News

Timeline of the far future

en.wikipedia.org

251–260 of 272 posts

Re: Timeline of the far future

#251
post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are wide varieties of corals and of their symbionts. To claim that they are all simultaneously going extinct in all seas and microclimates is absurd, and contradicts the evidence of their repeated adaptations to past climate variations over 500 million years as well as ignores the observation of their thriving across countless local seasonal and weather variations.

Please reconsider your thoughts on this subject: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coral_bleaching

I always welcome and only consider facts and scientific evidence.

Re: Timeline of the far future

#252
post #226
post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And likewise, maybe others start out in a state of unimaginable agony with a long memory of the same.

As a dude-do-you-ever-think sidenote, this sort of thing keeps me from getting excited about any type of virtual reality that does anything with our brains. How do I know it won't simulate 10 years of torture, then at the end replace that memory with 10 minutes of an edenic golden field, so when I actually unplug all I have is a nice remembered experience that I'd like (incorrectly) to try again?

Why would that be such a bad thing? Or to put it another way, how do you know you weren't tortured for the last 10 years and then given a memory wipe?

Re: Timeline of the far future

#253
Is someone aware of any non-fiction book that imagines the far future? There're plenty of good books about the past, but I'm not aware of something that spins a tale similar to this article, it could make a great read.

Re: Timeline of the far future

#254
post #198

I was getting depressed towards the end of the event list, and the last one cheered me up. Everything is circular.

It is happier, still a bit depressing, though, knowing that everything that happened already happened and will keep on happening.

Whoever thou mayest be, beloved stranger, whom I meet here for the first time, avail thyself of this happy hour and of the stillness around us, and above us, and let me tell thee something of the thought which has suddenly risen before me like a star which would fain shed down its rays upon thee and every one, as befits the nature of light.

Fellow man! Your whole life, like a sandglass, will always be reversed and will ever run out again, - a long minute of time will elapse until all those conditions out of which you were evolved return in the wheel of the cosmic process. And then you will find every pain and every pleasure, every friend and every enemy, every hope and every error, every blade of grass and every ray of sunshine once more, and the whole fabric of things which make up your life. This ring in which you are but a grain will glitter afresh forever. And in every one of these cycles of human life there will be one hour where, for the first time one man, and then many, will perceive the mighty thought of the eternal recurrence of all things:- and for mankind this is always the hour of Noon.

Re: Timeline of the far future

#255
post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The temperature of a black hole decrease as it gets larger. A black hole colder than 2.7K will absorb energy from background radiation faster than it emits Hawking radiation. So it will get larger and cooler. Any black hole warmer than 2.7K will emit energy faster than it absorbs. This means it will get smaller and hotter, leading it to lose energy at an increasing rate until it has lost all its energy and evaporates…

I've always wondered, what would happen if we were able to create a black hole of this small a scale and it didn't evaporate? Something with an EH of a fraction of a millimeter.

If we created it on earth? It would swallow the earth and destroy us. But to create one we would have to gather a mass greater than the moon onto the earth, so the gravitational effects would probably destroy us before the black hole formed.

Black holes aren't as scary as people think. If being next to a black hole of mass M is bad, then being next to a rock of mass M is probably just as bad.

Re: Timeline of the far future

#256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interplanetary is not the same thing as interstellar. Interplanetary just means different planets. E.g. after we colonize Mars we will be an interplanetary species. That's also where the divergence will begin. The development and evolutionary characteristics of individuals that grow up in low g will likely quickly begin to create a group of people radically different from anything on Earth. You're making a common mis…

I misspoke, assume I said interstellar. > You're making a common mistake on the speed of light. Correcting for my mishap, all I said was that finite c makes interstellar travel much less probable, which isn't wrong. It would take infinite energy for your spaceship to arrive at c as the Lorentz factor blows up. > if we can, somehow, develop technology to be able to consistently accelerate at just 1g This is exactly th…

You're completely right that we observe it taking an amount of energy approaching infinity to accelerate a particle as it approaches the speed of light. But what the particle experiences is quite different. Imagine the speed of light is 10 units and you had a thruster on you that, in a vacuum, could generated exactly enough thrust accelerate you 1/10th that speed each time you pressed a button. Nothing suddenly happens causing the thruster to completely fail on the 10th, 11th, or 500th push of that button.

All that would happen is that you'd start to experience things getting quite weird. The two biggest things would be that time for everybody would seem to be speeding up and distances would physically contract. This would prevent you from ever perceiving yourself as moving faster than 10 units. The distance from A to B might be 1000 units at rest, but through length contraction it might be perceived to instead only be 15, traversing that distance in thus 1.5 units of time would not be perceived as exceeding the speed of light. However, an outside observer would see you passing through those 1000 units at some speed asymptotically approaching 10 units of speed, but never getting there. They see you taking approximately 100 units of time, you see yourself doing it in 1.5 units of time. Both are right.

A really cool (and handy) area where these two worlds of observer and observed intersect is in particle decay. For instance in particle accelerators we can observe particles that decay after 1 units of time, yet the odd thing is we get observe these particles existing for 4 or 5 units of time! Actually the same effect also applies to things in nature. Muons are created as a product of atmospheric particle collisions, and these muons do make their way down to Earth's surface, yet their lifetime (before decay) is less than the time it would take to get from our atmosphere to the surface of earth at the speed of light! Our universe is seriously weird.

----

These are all very practical problems, or solutions, depending on how you look at things. You can travel billions of years in a human lifetime. Here [1] is a handy converter. It'd take about 45 years at 1g accelerator for a person to travel 15 billion light years - to the ends of the currently observable universe. So the only question is how long it will take us to develop or discover such technology. This is one of the many reasons the possibility of an EM drive, though improbable, was so tantalizing! Forget infinite energy, we're going exploring!

These are also the reason I said that things like extinction become quite difficult to define. For instance, imagine in 200 years that we send out 1000 exploration+colonization ships each with some 5,000 people on them (or whatever the magic number to create a genesis population without inbreeding is). And then 1000 years later humanity on Earth kills itself off. Are humans extinct? Well, we still have those 5 million humans traveling not only in different places in space but in different times in space. So you'd probably say no, but once again... it's weird.

[1] - http://convertalot.com/relativistic_star_ship_calculator.htm...

Re: Timeline of the far future

#257

Some of these are ironically myopic: " 10,000 years: If globalization trends lead to panmixia, human genetic variation will no longer be regionalized, as the effective population size will equal the actual population size. This does not mean homogeneity, as minority traits will still be preserved, e.g. the blonde gene will not disappear, but it will be rather evenly distributed worldwide. " That prediction makes the…

> our potential growth and expansion is effectively unlimited

It's still finite. I recommend this famous Asimov story [1]. I don't think that it makes humanity "more meaningful" or something similar if we start interplanetary colonization.

Really, it doesn't matter even if we inhabit the whole observable universe. We will die and it doesn't matter if I die on an exoplanet as a 1500y/o guy in a young body or if I die on earth as a 80y/o. Maybe I will experience more and whatever, but I don't really give a sh*t because life will always be finite (even if you can be billions of years old). And the implications of becoming so old can be seen in the Netflix series "Altered Carbon": You will develop weird sexual fetishes because you're bored af. And if we "overcome humans" and become some other weird sentient being it's still limited and if it's not limited it still doesn't matter from some other angle.

I don't understand why everybody is excited about interplanetary colonization and immortality. There's this quote: "To philosophize is to learn to die" - I think this is more important than trying to increase your life span or do some other stuff to delay death or even become immortal. I think most of those Silicon Valley tycoons who want this, e.g. Peter Thiel, just like the thought of accumulating power over hundreds of years. Sounds hedonistic to me + all that "will to power" ego talk.

[1]: http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html

Re: Timeline of the far future

#258
post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is fascinating! Do you have a reference?

In the Three Body Problem series by Cixin Liu, the orbits of planets and moons in the solar system are altered to make colonization and terraforming easier.

Wrong. In the book they build the bunker stations behind Jupiter but NOT in orbit of jupiter or its moons and even that station keeping takes a tremendous energy.

Re: Timeline of the far future

#259
Fascinating reading, but does anybody else find it incredibly depressing? Everything we've seen, every place we loved, everything we've produced, every bit of our history, literature, arts, every smallest trace of our passage in the universe, and every living being, species, descendant or distant cousin, is going to be pulverized, baked, incinerated and atomized. Not even too far from now, in geological terms- much before the universe has stopped producing new stars and planets and new life.

Re: Timeline of the far future

#260
post #13
post #8

> The length of the day used for astronomical timekeeping reaches about 86,401 SI seconds. Under the present-day timekeeping system, either a leap second would need to be added to the clock every single day, or else by then, in order to compensate, the length of the day would have had to have been officially lengthened by one SI second. Can you just imagine the amount of legacy code with DAY_SECONDS=86400 out there 5…

It will be easier to boost the Earth’s spin back to a 86,400-second day than to fix all the code.

Probably not. https://what-if.xkcd.com/26/
Post reply on HN