Universe Expected To Decay Much Sooner Than Previously Thought (phys.org) 97
Dutch researchers have recalculated the timeline for cosmic decay via Hawking-like radiation and found that the universe may end much sooner than previously thought -- around 10^78 years, rather than 10^1100. Phys.Org reports: The research by black hole expert Heino Falcke, quantum physicist Michael Wondrak, and mathematician Walter van Suijlekom (all from Radboud University, Nijmegen, the Netherlands) is a follow-up to a 2023 paper by the same trio. In that paper, they showed that not only black holes, but also other objects such as neutron stars, can "evaporate" via a process akin to Hawking radiation. After that publication, the researchers received many questions from inside and outside the scientific community about how long the process would take. They have now answered this question in the new article.
The researchers calculated that the end of the universe is about 10^78 years away, if only Hawking-like radiation is taken into account. This is the time it takes for white dwarf stars, the most persistent celestial bodies, to decay via Hawking-like radiation. Previous studies, which did not take this effect into account, put the lifetime of white dwarfs at 10^1100 years. Lead author Heino Falcke said, "So the ultimate end of the universe comes much sooner than expected, but fortunately it still takes a very long time." The findings have been published in the Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics.
The researchers calculated that the end of the universe is about 10^78 years away, if only Hawking-like radiation is taken into account. This is the time it takes for white dwarf stars, the most persistent celestial bodies, to decay via Hawking-like radiation. Previous studies, which did not take this effect into account, put the lifetime of white dwarfs at 10^1100 years. Lead author Heino Falcke said, "So the ultimate end of the universe comes much sooner than expected, but fortunately it still takes a very long time." The findings have been published in the Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics.
Also the title is wrong (Score:2)
The end of the universe is not the same as all matter decaying. There's nothing in physics that says the universe can't continue matter free, just containing energy.
Re: (Score:2)
If Star Trek has taught us anything, it's that we will transcend to energy beings by then.
Re: (Score:2)
Star trek is fiction. Also energy can't store usable information on its own - it needs a matter substrate, so the whole energy being thing is for the birds.
Re: (Score:3)
It could be argued that matter is just energy storing information.
Re: (Score:2)
Conversely, it could be argued that matter is just an energy being that died.
Re: (Score:2)
the whole energy being thing is for the birds.
So that's why the young people say birds aren't real! /s
Re: (Score:2)
If energy cannot store information how does radio work?
Re: (Score:2)
the energy is emitted and detected by matter.
Re: (Score:2)
Star trek is fiction...
In this universe it's fiction.
Re: (Score:2)
In what way is matter needed for energy to contain information? When we receive information from EM radiation that has traveled in space for thousands of years, where is the matter? We (beings of matter) need the energy to interact with matter for us to read it, but it's there if we read it or not.
Re: (Score:2)
There's nothing in physics that says the universe can't continue matter free
Yes there is because some matter does not decay, for example electrons and neutrinos.
Re: (Score:2)
You only say that because energy and matter are abstractions within our artificial model which contains those constraints. Who knows what properties of what is really happening we reduce away and lose in the error margins.
Re: Abstract physics - proton decay (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Abstract physics (Score:5, Insightful)
That's what's great about physics. You can say whatever you want in areas that are beyond the capabilities of current science. Parallel universes, wormholes, (past) time travel... 10^78 years instead of 10*1100? We're bordering on intellectual masturbation.
I know it's fashionable in MAGAland these days to be anti-intellectual, but good part of science is refinement. Observations are made and explanations for those observations follow. Further observations confirm, deny, or clarify those explanations. This repeats any time new information comes to light, and predictions become - over time - increasingly accurate.
Tossing your hands up in the air of declaring "intellectual masturbation" is impatient child thinking. Just because you can't have the perfect answer now, the whole process is faulty, so give up? No. These people aren't saying "whatever you want"; they're presenting the latest evidence-based model, for peer-review and further refinement passes.
But you knew all that, right?
Re: (Score:3)
That's what's great about physics. You can say whatever you want in areas that are beyond the capabilities of current science. Parallel universes, wormholes, (past) time travel... 10^78 years instead of 10*1100? We're bordering on intellectual masturbation.
I know it's fashionable in MAGAland these days to be anti-intellectual, but good part of science is refinement.
I hope you realize that trying to connect this to Trump somehow is kind of disingenuous, and alerts the worker to the concept that politics is as important as science ion the upcoming argument. Not always, but a non-zero chance.
The guy is expressing skepticism, usually considered a good trait in matters of science.
Maybe we should start over again.
The authors of the paper are using a rather large number of assumptions - indeed they admit the paper is a Gedankenexperiment.
And despite some folks disa
Re: (Score:2)
Where was his skepticism? I saw something that looked more like anti-intellectualism then any attempt at being skeptical.
Re: (Score:2)
Where was his skepticism? I saw something that looked more like anti-intellectualism then any attempt at being skeptical.
Let us look at what he wrote:
That's what's great about physics. You can say whatever you want in areas that are beyond the capabilities of current science.
People do make conjectures about things that are beyond Science. Think String theory. So how do we falsify that? Hint - we don't, we either accept it because it is convenient, or be skeptical about it. That doesn't stop String theorists from discussion or agitating for their hypothesis. Back to the subject at hand.
If you read the paper referenced
Re: (Score:2)
While a valid argument, there's much too much certainty in the summary. E.g., the universe might collapse the false vacuum at any point. It could be happening right now, just not here yet. Or perhaps that couldn't happen, nobody knows. (Of course, were that to happen thereld be no warning, as the collapse would spread faster than light. And SOME universe would remain, just not one we could live in. I've never seen a good projection of what the resultant universe would be like.)
And that's just ONE poss
Re: (Score:2)
What's worse? You derailing a discussion about the energy death of the universe by bringing up Trump, or you getting modded +5 Insightful?
Re: (Score:2)
they'll feel really, really dumb in about 10^77 years
Re:No point in saving the planet then (Score:4, Informative)
> they'll feel really, really dumb in about 10^77 years
No, they'll still have 9 times that long ahead of them.
Re: (Score:3)
That is how long they will have starlight. After the last white dwarf "evaporates", people will be in for a very boring time without light to read from:
Because the researchers were at it anyway, they also calculated how long it takes for the moon and a human to evaporate via Hawking-like radiation. That's 10^90 years.
Re: (Score:2)
So all them hippies will be surrounded by their useless solar panels for *ages*.
Sorry you bought them now, I bet.
(*) Well, okay, I misunderstood and thought white dwarfs were the last things in the universe to evaporate, missed the "celestial bodies" part.
"the end of the universe is about 1078 years away" (Score:3, Funny)
Is there an editor around?
Re:"the end of the universe is about 1078 years aw (Score:5, Funny)
No, they're all busy packing to get as far as possible from Earth when the end of the universe happens!
Re: (Score:1)
Hey! Take the lawyers and politicians with you!
Re:"the end of the universe is about 1078 years aw (Score:5, Insightful)
The editors have been next to fucking useless for decades.
Oblg. You had ONE job!
Re: (Score:2)
The editors have been next to fucking useless for decades.
Come on, Slashdot hasn't even been around for dec-
Looks at calendar...
Oh, fuck.
Re: (Score:2)
they are still decaying.
so how long is it going to take? (Score:3)
around 10^78 years, rather than 10^1100
and later:
The researchers calculated that the end of the universe is about 1078 years away, if only Hawking-like radiation is taken into account. This is the time it takes for white dwarf stars, the most persistent celestial bodies, to decay via Hawking-like radiation. Previous studies, which did not take this effect into account, put the lifetime of white dwarfs at 101100 years.
The linked article states 10^68...
Re: (Score:1)
And not only 10^68 instead of 10(?)78, but the 101100, I can not find in the summary at all. ...
Did not read the article yet, lets see
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But in 1066 years, the French invade.
Again.
Re: (Score:2)
Or as the editors here would say 1068 years...
1068 or 10^68... pretty sure I won't be around to give a damn. Someone else's problem!
So all those people ... (Score:2)
... with their "Repent! The end is near!" signs were right after all!
Re: (Score:1)
Good. I hate long waits.
Really? (Score:4, Interesting)
If its infinite in time how did we reach this point in time because by definition would have taken an infinite amount of time to get here?
Re: (Score:3)
It depends upon what time actually is. Time itself might a construct of physics (not physical theory, many physicists seem to mistake one for the other) at the Planck scale. If you believe in the Big Wang (its Chinese now), then there is no time before Wang.
On the other hand, I suppose you can consider the block universe notion but people like Max Tegmark mistake mathematics for physics.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
False analogy. Starting counting from zero has a finite start point - ie zero. You can't just drop in to whatever part of time you like like you can with numbers, you have to go from start to end and if there is no start...
Re: (Score:2)
False analogy. Starting counting from zero has a finite start point - ie zero.
The natural numbers (positive integers) and whole numbers (non-negative integers) are still infinite. Something being infinite does not necessarily imply being infinite in all directions.
Re: (Score:3)
If time had a start then its by definition its not infinite. Unlike numbers which "exist" whether you count them or not, the future does not yet exist. At least for the sake of this argument.
Re: (Score:2)
"basic logic says so." Oh? And just what is this basic logic that we can all bask in its cosmic reason?
Re: (Score:2)
The basic logic says exactly the opposite, and it is something that has been for a very long time, even before physics.
Consider this: Suppose time is infinite. You have existed somewhere in this infinite time for X years (or whatever other unit of time you choose) since the moment you happened.
That means that the time that has passed from the beginning of time to the moment of your birth is exactly half of infinity minus X. Which is infinity, which means you do not exist yet.
Hence at least one of the two as
Re: (Score:1)
I was taught to not split infinities.
Re: (Score:2)
That means that the time that has passed from the beginning of time to the moment of your birth is exactly half of infinity minus X. Which is infinity, which means you do not exist yet.
As I posted above, "infinite" does not necessarily mean infinite in all directions. If you want a reasonable example from physics, consider a photon emitted by the sun. We know (to a certain precision) that it has a specific start point, yet it will continue moving infinitely if it doesn't strike anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Your example is certainly unreasonable, as there is nothing in physics that will justify the assumption that a photon has a way to move indefinitely in any one direction.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that we can observe photons that were emitted billions of light years away is a pretty good example.
A good example of what? Billions of years is a very small quantity compared to infinity.
Do you have any physics theory that says a photon doesn't continue moving indefinitely?
Yes, any cosmological theory that doesn't assume an infinite universe gives you the limits of how far the photon can go.
Re: the universe is infinite in time and space. (Score:2)
We know (to a certain precision) that it has a specific start point, yet it will continue moving infinitely if it doesn't strike anything.
Granted I don't keep up with cosmology very much but last time I checked the Universe was believed to be finite but unbounded, meaning that our hypothetical photon would eventually end up right back where it started. That of course assumes that space is empty, whereas in reality it would eventually hit some random piece of space dust.
Re: (Score:2)
What particular axioms are you using that allows you to deduce that from "basic logic"?
Re: the universe is infinite in time and space. (Score:2)
Which basic logic did you use to reach that conclusion?
Star Trek Predicted It (Score:2)
This whole exchange has me thinking of a filler bit from a DS9 episode.
JACK: The fact is that the universe is going to stop expanding and it is going to collapse in on itself. We've got to do something before it's too late.
PATRICK: How much time do we have left?
JACK: Sixty trillion years, seventy at the most.
JACK: There's too much matter. The universe is too heavy for its own good.
LAUREN: You need to lighten the load.
JACK: Yes, yes, yes, exactly. We have to find some way to decrease the mass.
SARINA: Of the
Re: (Score:3)
We're just need to deport the so-called Higgs field, a criminal field, which has recently invaded the Standard Model. Once this dangerous, illegal alien field is deported, mass will disappear and with it the danger of the collapse of the Universe.
Problem solved.
Re: (Score:2)
I was thinking more along the lines of putting tariffs on energy imports from mass.
Re: (Score:2)
That's good thinking, with several definitions available, one can set up many, many negotiations for bigly successful great deals.
You can set one tariff for rest mass, one for inertial mass, one for relativistic mass, one for a catholic mass...
But what if people in the Universe prefer not to be blown away by the wind?
Re: Star Trek Predicted It (Score:2)
Close (Score:2)
1078 years does sound really short.
Adjusted Maths (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and let's also take into account that some numbers are given in binary, such as "101100 years" for the life of a white star. So that's 44 years, tops. Talk about fast decay!
Scientists say Universe to end Thursday (Score:2)
The ultimate click-bait.
Re: (Score:2)
click-hate.
FTFY
Did they take into account (Score:2)
The 1.38 x 10^10 years that we have already had?
I guess I need to change my reservation at Milliways...
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps the earth 400^4 is years old (Score:2)
Archbishop Usher calculated the age of the earth as 4004 BC. Perhaps that was a similar typo, which would make the age 25.6 billion years old, OK, about 6 times higher than current scientific estimates, but at least in the right ball park :-)
Re: (Score:2)
[Captain Mal raising an objection but then quietly resigning himself to silence]
Yikes! (Score:2)
In only a thousand years everything will be gone!
I've got to prepare!
Re: (Score:2)
I'm calling in sick tomorrow
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, double irony. I had a Unicode superscript 3 on that, which was removed by Slashdot.
Ah, Slashdot! Last bastion for UTF-8 on the internet!
Re: (Score:2)
"Sergant, we need to storm Bastion UTF-8. What do have in the way of troops?"
Re: (Score:2)
In only a thousand years everything will be gone!
I've got to prepare!
Damn. So I still have to pay my AmEx bill on Friday.
Worst theoretical physics error breaken! (Score:3)
Up to now the record of theoretical physics prediction error was ~10^120 for the dark energy (vacuum) density. Great achievement guys!
I'll just stick with 'no one knows the day or hour (Score:2)
The timing is not important (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately it's just cold cut sandwiches and iced tea at that point.
This serves as a great reminder... (Score:2)
decay (Score:2)
What day of the week? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
with my luck itll be early morning on a nice sunny Saturday when I had fishing plans >_>
Oh DAMN! (Score:2)
I just put the cake into the oven.
"--The Sun will die in a billion years" (Score:2)
"--Yes, I said a billion..."
"--Whew! For a moment there, I thought you said a million"
thank god (Score:2)
>>the universe may end much sooner than previously thought
finally, some good news for once
Waaaah, quick! We much get things done! (Score:2)
No time! No time!
check back later (Score:2)
Yeah, maybe. Consult me again in 10^78 years.
Just Math (Score:2)
Penrose's group has some actual evidence for the Cyclic Cosmology model in CMB patterns.
I'll go with hypothesis/data over formulae.
A better headline(?): (Score:2)
the wrongest wrong we ever wrongt (Score:1)
What a fun formatting error. The universe ends in a thousand years! AAAAAAHHH