this post was submitted on 17 Oct 2025
7 points (100.0% liked)

Science Memes

17233 readers
1391 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] faintwhenfree@lemmus.org 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Yes, but we don't have proof that universe can't generate new matter. For all we know there is a mechanism in universe not yet observed that can create new matter out of little vacuum and more stars will keep forming.

So technically all we can say is, it's likely that stars will die out in 1000 trillion years.

[–] ubergeek@lemmy.today 2 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Yes, but we don’t have proof that universe can’t generate new matter.

True... we also don't have proof there isn't a tea pot orbiting our Sun since it's creation, either.

However, there's also a complete lack of evidence of it.

You cannot prove a negative. The evidence says no new matter can be created. No evidence that new matter gets created. Therefore, we work on the model of no new matter creation.

[–] tempest@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

So if all the existing matter came from the big Bang, is it possible to condense it all back into one place?

[–] pticrix@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 weeks ago
[–] FishFace@piefed.social 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

On these scales, the accuracy of our observations should reduce our confidence though. It doesn't make sense to confidently say that, in 200 trillion years there will be no stars, because our observations of the rate of new matter creation (approximately zero) have a margin of error which allows for there to still be some

[–] ubergeek@lemmy.today 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Until evidence shows otherwise, new matter being created doesnt fit our observations.

Go prove that wrong! Win yourself a Nobel prize in physics! That's what science is about!

[–] SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I do also want to point out that stuff like "The conservation of energy" law, in other words, that energy cannot be created or destroyed, does not hold for our universe with our current models. An expanding universe violates the time-translation symmetry

This is our current models. This is what our current physics says. And we know it's incomplete.

When it comes to scientific predictions, you always, always, need the caveat, "under our current model of".

[–] ubergeek@lemmy.today 1 points 1 week ago

Space itself expanding doesnt, however...