geordief

See all his dinner guests did a runner.

Just came up in (I think it is called) my feed. This seems very genuine.Most of the other stuff that appears in my feed is pure crap and is ai generated (so that I click on it a lot less lately)

Dear Acting President of all of the Northern and Western Hemispheres very much obliged for your latest Taco recipe. Safe passage on your next Emperor I transporter. from all at the Circle of Nordic Clowns Federation

Shame they couldn't capture one particular political pimple on the N American continent and deposit it somewhere really GALACTIC without anyone noticing.

It seems (crudely)from the beginning of your linked post that the formulae employed may be based on the normal spacetime metric with extra input from the rate of expansion? Do the faster than c recessionary speeds that are now in play have their counterparts in the earliest epochs in the universe? For example, the inflationary period occurred, if I am correct some short time after T+10^-43 seconds.Were there superluminal recessionary speeds during that epoch also? From the incredible rate of inflation then it would seem possible to me but perhaps the actual highest speed of recession remained below c despite the more than ferocious accelerated rate of the inflation?

In an inflationary (or anti inflationary,I suppose) universe are there spacetime curvature effects leading to different time/space measurements wrt two different reference frames? I understand that the universe is apparently flat in terms of curvature but does its agreed expansion mean that measurements need to be adjusted to account for it?

Faux GPTChat?

Yes ,I understand that a heat death is just one possibility (very recent findings apparently even suggesting an eventual gravitational collapse may be on the cards again) What is the reason that an absolute zero temperature cannot be reached ?(my OP was assuming that it would) Is to do with the "ground state" energy that has been mentioned by other posters -or does the system not even reach that state where absolute zero still contains energy of some kind. Or is there another reason that the system cannot attain absolute zero even with an infinite amount of time at its disposal?(could it be that ,time being relative that that is the wrong way to look at it?)

I hadn't considered that I don’t think we have any evidence that models would fail That (lack of evidence)wouldn't prevent them from failing,would it? It is an argument from incredulity but I would be extremely impressed if the models (note I don"t claim to be at all versed in those models -as I am sure you already know) continued working indefinitely @exchemist points out that we are not talking about extreme conditions but I am not so sure.They seem extremely different to what would have preceeded but I am in no position to argue that (semantic?) point. I think I might have be saying or implying more or less the same.

Aren't all models liable to break down in extreme situations? If a heat death scenario lasts for ,say a million or more times the length of the universe to date(just picking a figure out of the air) might that approach a circumstance we can't describe with a model that works in current conditions? I have no idea what in particular might cause the model to break down but it might not be a surprise if it did,would it?

If absolutely nothing in the entire universe interacts with anything else ,is it not possible to view that as all particles effectively ceasing to exist (having no motion being incidental at that point)? Is the unattainability of absolute zero contingent upon there being an overall system within which sub systems exist? None of the subsystems could individually reach absolute zero but if the overall system itself reaches absolute zero (I don't know how) then all the subsystems would likewise reach that state. Is the temperature of a system something we model anyway and ,if the universe did come to a complete end would the model break down at or before that point? Is the OP "Can the universe die?" a legitimate question or is such an end nonsensical (the same applying to any beginning? Personally I am more comfortable with no beginning ,no end but continuous change. Does that apply to an ultimate heat death scenario? Is that scenario so theoretical that we can say little about it? (I think Penrose has a theory about it though...)

I understand we have the concept of a universal heat death where (I think) all that remains is random interactions between objects (ie particles?) that never lead to anything of more consequence. Could those random interactions lessen in frequency over time so that eventually there are none and we can say nothing is moving ?(if there are no interactions how can an object "move" just with respect to itself?) Does an end of absolutely everything become possible in those circumstances? If it does ,would/could that rule out any restart? BTW the forum seems to be getting very ,very slow also- ironically.

The prequel

There is only you and AI** (and a few others here,no doubt) that get that. Don't tell me.It may come eventually. ** quite prissy(no it didn't get it but it "had a go")

https://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/6384/ Her father was killed 50 years ago...She might hold out. Can't vouch for this but I saw on another site that "2026 marks the 50th anniversary of the torture to death of her father, socialist activist Jorge Rodríguez, by the CIA-backed security services of the US-aligned Pérez regime in Venezuela"