PDA

View Full Version : Timeline of the far future (again!)



parallaxicality
2012-May-22, 11:42 AM
I've just been submarined on this one.

Timeline of the far future (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_far_future) has become my current pet project on Wikipedia, as I have said before. Recently it it was cited on Mythbusters' webpage, and then trended on Twitter for a few days, which was cool as it brought in a lot of viewers. Unfortunately it has also brought the page under intense scrutiny. Not that I have anything against constructive criticism but I'm not a scientist and so sometimes feel ill-equipped to handle the questions.

The latest one involves Pointcare recurrence. I have only the vaguest understanding of what Pointcare recurrence even is, and the section on it (at the end of the "Future of the universe" section) was added before I was ever involved. Recently someone chimed in saying that the source used for the information was dubious, and asked it if should be removed. I was against removing it because a) I had no way to determine if the source was indeed dubious and b) I'm pretty sure that section was referenced on an episode of Futurama (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Late_Philip_J._Fry), and so that genie is pretty much out of the bottle.

If I can't delete it, I must fix it. But how? Do any of you know of a source I could use to mend that section, assuming it needs mending?

Thanks again for all your help.

mutleyeng
2012-May-22, 12:23 PM
i hadnt really heard the phrase Poincare reccurence before, but having gone to the link it sounds very much like what Roger Penrose now proposes is it not?

BTW, love the timeline page

John Mendenhall
2012-May-22, 03:05 PM
Fun page, but personally I think anything after 50,000 years is so much speculation. Let other people fight it out over Poincare.

Nice work, regards, John M.

Tensor
2012-May-22, 04:18 PM
I've just been submarined on this one.

Timeline of the far future (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_far_future) has become my current pet project on Wikipedia, as I have said before. Recently it it was cited on Mythbusters' webpage, and then trended on Twitter for a few days, which was cool as it brought in a lot of viewers. Unfortunately it has also brought the page under intense scrutiny. Not that I have anything against constructive criticism but I'm not a scientist and so sometimes feel ill-equipped to handle the questions.
I love that page. Good work on keeping it up.


The latest one involves Pointcare recurrence. I have only the vaguest understanding of what Pointcare recurrence even is, and the section on it (at the end of the "Future of the universe" section) was added before I was ever involved. Recently someone chimed in saying that the source used for the information was dubious, and asked it if should be removed.

Why is someone claiming it is dubious?


If I can't delete it, I must fix it. But how? Do any of you know of a source I could use to mend that section, assuming it needs mending?

I wouldn't mess with it until you find out why it may be dubious. Unless of course, you already know and just didn't share. And if you didn't share, didn't you get taught to share as a child? :p :D


Thanks again for all your help.

That's what were here for, right? :)

parallaxicality
2012-May-22, 06:28 PM
Basically, the user says that all the citations in the referred paper are the author's own work, and that it does not constitute mainstream physics. I can't vouch for the latter and as to the former, well I don't mind a guy citing his own work if the guy is credible. I have no idea if this guy is credible or not.

Hlafordlaes
2012-May-23, 09:25 PM
Can't help on your question, but sure enjoyed visiting the wiki page. Nice work!

Some of those cosmic timelines eerily coincide with my current estimate of how long it will take to balance my checkbook again, sadly.

Robert Tulip
2012-May-24, 01:26 AM
The Poincaré recurrence theorem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poincar%C3%A9_recurrence_theorem) is used (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_far_future#Future_of_the_Earth.2C_ the_Solar_System_and_the_Universe) rather absurdly to speculate an 'eternal return of the same' for the universe after something like 1010000000000 to the power of 76.66 years.

This appears out of line with the other scientific astronomical observations on the page because it postulates a cyclic series of universes like the old Nietzsche speculation, but without any basis for how long a supposed big crunch might take. It is out of line with current information on accelerating expansion. I don't think it adds to the scientific plausibility of the page.

Tensor
2012-May-24, 03:27 AM
Basically, the user says that all the citations in the referred paper are the author's own work, and that it does not constitute mainstream physics. I can't vouch for the latter and as to the former, well I don't mind a guy citing his own work if the guy is credible. I have no idea if this guy is credible or not.

I haven't abandoned you here. I'm looking at a few things, but my time has been extremely limited lately. It appears that the author is the only one pursuing this line of thought, so it's not surprising there aren't papers by other authors. However, there may be a few older papers by other authors, while not specifically on how the Poincare recurrence may reproduce the universe, the papers may show how it is possible. Let me finish looking up a couple more papers and I'll get back to you.

eburacum45
2012-May-24, 04:41 AM
The Poincaré recurrence theorem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poincar%C3%A9_recurrence_theorem) is used (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_far_future#Future_of_the_Earth.2C_ the_Solar_System_and_the_Universe) rather absurdly to speculate an 'eternal return of the same' for the universe after something like 1010000000000 to the power of 76.66 years.

This appears out of line with the other scientific astronomical observations on the page because it postulates a cyclic series of universes like the old Nietzsche speculation, but without any basis for how long a supposed big crunch might take. It is out of line with current information on accelerating expansion. I don't think it adds to the scientific plausibility of the page.I don't think Poincaré recurrence requires a big crunch; the new universe arises randomly from the flat space left after the old universe has evaporated...

mutleyeng
2012-May-24, 10:10 AM
which is what Penrose now claims isnt it?
same kinda thing - eventually everything returns to its original state where all information is lost so the whole thing happens again