The extreme far future

>>8773826
>all matter in the universe will slowly be converted to iron

Wrong. There are plenty of elements heavier than iron (gold, mercury, etc.) that will never become iron. Since the statement i quoted is false i can reguard the rest of your entire statement as also probably false.

Neat, huh?

>>8773845
>Anonymous 03/24/17(Fri)09:45:58 No.877
>>8773845
Those may or may not break down. The point is the overwhelming majority of matter will be iron, even more than hydrogen in the universe today.
If you're wondering why the iron can't fuse into something else, its because after iron, fusing nuclei isn't energy efficient anymore, meaning it would involve going from a low energy state to a high one, which can't happen spontaneously

Also, you can research something before immediately discarding it
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Future_of_an_expanding_universe#/Future_without_proton_decay

>>8773864
Im fully aware of why fusion stops at iron. The problems i have are:
>all the matter in the universe will be converted to iron
Already explained that one. Not to mention the last remaining stars may go supernova making the percentage of iron even lower. All you can say for sure is the majority will be iron or heavier.
>iron stars
Is just plain retarded, i dont feel like i need to explain why.
>newly formed iron will clump into spheres
Also wrong. It will get blasted out into the universe as the star dies. Or become a black hole. Either way you are looking at iron asteroids flying away from eachother and a few black holes here and there.

>>8773845
>i am very smart

I suspect the iron will melt due to the intense gravitational pressure

probably the iron would turn into gas

>>8774511
"Iron star" is just the term someone gave it, obviously its not gonna produce heat or light.
And the iron doesn't get "blasted" by anything, because its formed from an extremely slow cold fusion process, not supernovae
And before you say cold fusion is impossible, it isn't. Over extremely long periods of time, quantum tunneling can allow for nuclei to fuse without the necessary heat for doing so.

>>8774532
>"Iron star" is just the term someone gave it, obviously its not gonna produce heat or light.

yes it will get very hot because the gravitational pressure at the centre of the iron sun would be huge.

>>8774532
Iron stars become neutron stars become black holes, provided enough matter is present for each of the steps to go through.
Lrn2life cycle of stars pls

>>8774534
Valid point
Still, the heat will radiate off too quickly for the structure to get hot enough to produce any light, given the incredibly long formation time

>>8774540
What if our sun has iron gas in its core, surrounded by helium as an insulation?

>>8774537
I know life cycle of stars. Neutron stars lose mass due to neutrino shenanigans, black holes evaporate through hawking radiation. Big chunks of inert iron just stay there, so they'd still be the last large structures in the universe

>>8774563
So don't call them stars, call them iron rocks.

>>8774553
First of all, our sun isn't massive or old enough to have any worthwhile quantities of iron in it. Secondly, the helium dissipates heat into space, the iron dissipates heat into the helium, etc. Also, the helium is extremely slowly turned to iron anyways

>>8774569
>First of all, our sun isn't massive or old enough to have any worthwhile quantities of iron in it.
Ummm... The sun is about 0.014% iron, which given the size of the thing, means about 18,000 Earth masses of iron. Nearly all of the iron in the universe comes from dead stars.

I need to read up on OP's scenario, but as I understand it - the problem is Iron has a lot of mass, as long as it's around, and the universe isn't expanding too quickly to prevent it, the stuff is going to collapse into new stars.

By the time large black holes start unraveling, the cosmic expansion will be happening too quickly for any matter to join into new structures. Judging by the graph, you're looking at an age where every particle will be moving part from every other so quickly that each will effectively be in its own universe - dunno how you're going to get any super-structures of iron out of that.

But it's interesting enough that I'll check up on your links.

>>8774600
Only in a big rip scenario. We don't know whether it'll be big rip or heat death, all of this was assuming it would be the latter.
Also 18,000 earth masses is a lot, but I chose the word "worthwhile" intentionally. 0.014% isn't anywhere close to the amounts implied by the post I was replying to.
Iron can't collapse into new stars because iron fusion is an uphill battle as far as energy goes. The process consumes more energy than it produces, so it can't sustain a star. That's why it only happens in supernovae

>>8774629
As I understand it, the current cosmological observations point to heat death followed by a big rip. ...Not that it isn't all very speculative given how little we know about dark energy and non-baryonic matter.

Though, either way, that iron would still be a bunch of mass - it'd collapse one way or the other. If it didn't start a fusion process, then straight to black hole land.