So when the universe 'dies' and reaches thermodynamic

We don't know. Spacetime is not well understood (despite what asbergers believe), entropy is just an arbitrary concept without any experimental evidence, and so is time.

I would not count too much on bing bang, or heat death, to be the last word, as both are just mathematical extrapolations of currently accepted theories, wich are being disputed and modified all the time.

>>8883960
If it reached thermodynamic equilibrium the stars will break down into the bare elements, planets would likely break down too, as their cores will stop spinning, the molten magma will be solidified, there may not even be light in the universe as it is essentially energy (radiation). The atoms cannot break down into pure energy since that will essentially break the idea of TDE. There will be eternal darkness full of pure neutrons (no positive/negative charge/energy). A monolithic cloud of neutrally charged particles floating around in an endless, energy-less void. Due to gravity (since in the bare concept it isn't a form of energy) all the neutrons/neutral particles may be condensed back into a single point in space. Considering this a TDE may be the cause of the primeval atom.

>>8884389
I worded it terribly but I hope you get the concept.

>>8884389
You're not taking expansion into account though. Eventually even atoms will be ripped apart by it.

Also why would the 'void' be "energy-less"? Energy can't be destroyed. Wouldn't it just be evenly distributed? Evenly distributed energy is basically like no energy, since there's no changes.

>>8884389
(samefag)
All forms of energy may be neutralized in this scenario.
Atomic particles (electrons/protons), photons/light, matter in itself since it can be equally exchanged to energy. In a TDE scenario, forget neutrons, they may even be gone too since they are a mass of matter. The universe may be left with a giant cloud of a form of energy-less or COMPLETELY static particle. However this also begs the question if a heat death is even possible, since matter can be interchanged between energy, unless anti-matter comes into the picture upon TDE, then it is an impossible concept, or at least not possible with current particle knowledge. Even IF anti-matter kicks in isn't it theorized that with it comes a gigantic burst of energy from the cancelling out of anti and matter. If it does come in then it negates the theory of a TDE death since the energy will essentially come into the universe again, likely not enough but I do hope you understand what my concept is.

>>8884423
if it is large enough to create an energy-space balance then it creates a Zero. It isn't exactly a balance but rather a cancel out of a balancing equation. It is a simple balance (in layman terms), but if there is a perfect balance then the output of that is, again, a Zero, which in technical terms that may mean there is effectively no energy.

>>8884445
what i'm getting at is looking at it in a (probably stupid) simple way.

There is X amount of energy in the universe, which is finite due to basic laws of physics. However there is an ever growing amount of space in the universe.

I'm trying to figure out a way to word this without sounding like a complete mongoloid.

bumping the thread for interest.

>>8883960
Bump

>>8884006
Entropy actually has a pretty solid definition in statistical physics, anon.
It's a measure of how many microscopic states correspond to the macroscopic state of the system, so for example how many different configurations of a crystal structure can exist at a given energy, or how many different folds a polymer chain can have at a given length.

File: 1480476504122.jpg (50KB, 566x594px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 566x594px

>>8884006
>he doesn't know about quantum thermodynamics