...a trillion years, give or take. Not a glimmer of light. Everything in the universe will be extinguished. No supernovas, stars, neutrons, planets, no explosions, nothing at all. So says the narrator at the end of a BBC 4 documentary I just watched.
The big bang was only around 13.8 billion years ago, so a trillion years (a thousand billion) is still a fair way off. I'm only posting this to say, it seems unbelievable to think that eventually no life will ever exist. If that is the case, it does make me wonder, just how important is life if it can be snubbed out seemingly forever, even a trillion years from now?
Or, does anyone think another big bang would probably be triggered again?
OK so the big bang theory and all future extrapolations of this theory (big freeze, big crunch etc.) are all based on the big bang expansion theory. It makes assumptions such as galaxies redshifts being caused solely by the doppler effect, the CMB being the heat remnants of expansion of the early universe, dark matter to explain anomalous galactic spin rates etc. Whilst these fit in well with current theories and are our best explanation of what happened "at the start" and how the universe will end, they are still theories and by no means conclusively proven.
Personally, I believe in a more elegant solution to the origins and fate of the universe, being a relatively steady state/cyclic and unknown in origin or fate; But what use does it have to make assumptions about the beginning and end? Does it bring us meaning/purpose to our lives? How long have we been studying space? Are we really confident enough in our knowledge and theories to make these far-reaching conclusions already?
Now scientific experiments that scale up from our lab that can prove mechanisms explaining how the universe works right now, very useful stuff that, things like the Tokomat fusion reactors to recreate solar energy, and the LHC out to prove, or perhaps disprove Quantum mechanics, or our space probes which are observing planetary/cometary objects never before studied at such proximity (Rosetta, New Horizons etc.), real science.
The usual pseudo-science gibberish these cosmological theorists tend to preach to the masses, whilst thought provoking, is usually about as useful as a chocolate teapot on a day to day basis, and produces a sense of confoundment and incomprehensibility when it comes to explaining the universe. I wish I would hear more of the right questions being asked like; is our model of how stars shine, and evolve correct? Are their any mechanisms we think we understand that could be improved or better explained using different or more elegant theories?
There are people experimenting and thinking more critically about what we think we know out there, trying to break the cycle of going round in circles of increasingly fudging models with patches and changes to fit our constantly improving and new observations of space...