Talk:Heat death of the universe

This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Astronomy: Cosmology High‑importance Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Cosmology task force. ‹See TfM› Physics High‑importance Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1, 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 700 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Please, watch the recent changes (Nov 2022): it is now a Big Trip page

Even if well sourced, the new edits have turned this page into a Big Trip page, which is a completely different thing from heat death and more related to Big Rip. It is also a heavily speculative scenario which finds almost no echo in the scientific mainstream / consensus, which makes me wonder whether it should be included on Wikipedia. But as it stands now, this page has nothing to do with heat death = “Lord Kelvin’s theory of entropic exhaustion and cease of entropy production, no residual Helmholtz free energy”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.44.80.223 (talk) 12:02, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, reverted and I contacted the user. --mfb (talk) 12:18, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism by ban evader

User Heatlife is filling this site with incoherent nonsense and pseudoscience. Many has reverted his changes but he keeps reverting them back. Looking back, this page had the same problem a year ago, when Vortex3211 (currently blocked) posted the same nonsense Heatlife is posting. Other accounts that are likely the same person are Oranjelo100, Dlku4d and Antichristos based on their editing pattern on this page. 176.72.172.76 (talk) 14:46, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Unwarranted removal of references

Under the "Time frame for heat death" section, it originally said this:

It is suggested that, over vast periods of time, a spontaneous entropy decrease would eventually occur via the Poincaré recurrence theorem, thermal fluctuations, and fluctuation theorem. Through this, another universe could possibly be created by random quantum fluctuations or quantum tunnelling in roughly ${\displaystyle 10^{10^{10^{56}}}}$ years.

Such a scenario, however, has been described as "highly speculative, probably wrong, [and] completely untestable".^[1] Sean M. Carroll, originally an advocate of this idea, no longer supports it,^[2][3] arguing that the virtual particles produced by quantum fluctuation cannot become real particles without an external input of energy.

References

1. Pimbblet, Kevin (3 September 2015). "The fate of the universe: heat death, Big Rip or cosmic consciousness?". The Conversation.
2. Carroll, Sean (27 January 2014). Sean Carroll, "Fluctuations in de Sitter Space" FQXi conference 2014 in Vieques. FQXi.
3. Boddy, Kimberly K.; Carroll, Sean M.; Pollack, Jason (2014). "De Sitter Space Without Dynamical Quantum Fluctuations". arXiv:1405.0298 [hep-th].

(references from before the last two sentences are removed for brevity)

On 16 July 2023, the bottom paragraph and its three references were removed without an explanation.

On 4 November 2023, I noticed and put it back, with the edit summary "Revert unexplained reference & material removal from ~4 months ago".

On 20 November 2023, it was removed again by the same user, with the edit summary "This evidence might not valid or no longer valid, and It's also might be a false argument."

Is there a good reason to remove these references? "May or may not be no longer valid" is extremely vague, and even if a dissenting source exists, it should be added to the section instead of the existing sources removed.

If no objections, I will double-revert the removal in 7 days. Zowayix001 (talk) 17:05, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Reverting the removal and putting back the aforementioned two sentences. Zowayix001 (talk) 03:35, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

That information is no longer valid because it might have been debunked or some other changes that broke it down. LongnamXL35 (talk) 04:46, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

"It might have been" and "some other changes" are not valid reasons to delete references. Do you have a firmer debunking reference or anything to clarify what "some other changes" refers to? Zowayix001 (talk) 06:42, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Beyond The Fringe

Since this article about cosmology feels the need to clutter itself up with one of those moronic "in popular culture" sections I suspect are all written by the same obsessive-compulsive basement-dwelling nutjob, seeing as they tend to be heavily weighted in favour of pop culture references sufficiently recent for aspergeroidal teenagers to know about, and always include at least one ugly Japanese cartoon, I consider it to be a matter of the utmost important that this article is immediately amended to include the extremely relevant and useful information that the groundbreaking comedy review "Beyond The Fringe" featured a monologue spoken by Jonathan Miller called "The Heat Death Of The Universe". It's not actually about cosmology, being concerned with the problem of losing your trousers on a train, but given the kind of encyclopedia Wikipedia is, I think you ought to mention it. 86.130.233.216 (talk) 14:43, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Its that a meme?

that meme from Sponge Ai 181.99.51.236 (talk) 16:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)