Universe Expected To Decay Much Sooner Than Previously Thought (phys.org)
- Reference: 0177475199
- News link: https://science.slashdot.org/story/25/05/13/0057207/universe-expected-to-decay-much-sooner-than-previously-thought
- Source link: https://phys.org/news/2025-05-universe-decay-years-sooner-previously.html
> 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 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. 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 [2]published in the Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics .
[1] https://phys.org/news/2025-05-universe-decay-years-sooner-previously.html
[2] https://dx.doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2410.14734
No point in saving the planet then (Score:1)
All those stupid hippies trying to get us to fly less to save the planet, when it's going to decay to nothing anyway - They must be feeling pretty silly right now.
Re: (Score:2)
they'll feel really, really dumb in about 10^77 years
Re: (Score:3)
> they'll feel really, really dumb in about 10^77 years
No, they'll still have 9 times that long ahead of them.
"the end of the universe is about 1078 years away" (Score:1)
Is there an editor around?
Re: (Score:3)
No, they're all busy packing to get as far as possible from Earth when the end of the universe happens!
Re: (Score:2)
The editors have been next to fucking useless for decades.
Oblg. You had ONE job!
so how long is it going to take? (Score:3)
From the summary:
> 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)
Or as the editors here would say 1068 years...
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:3)
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:2)
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)
Numbers are infinite. But that doesn't stop me from counting to 10.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
"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
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.
Close (Score:2)
1078 years does sound really short.
Adjusted Maths (Score:4, Funny)
I think it's great that we are now able to just remove symbols from calculations. 10^78 = 1078. Noone should have been problems with maths anymore!
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!
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)
Meh, my advise would be to be careful about which ship at Milliway's you go joy riding in afterwards...
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 :-)
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)
Don’t worry. The paper isn’t out yet. It will be published in 202.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, double irony. I had a Unicode superscript 3 on that, which was removed by Slashdot.
Worst theoretical physics error breaken! (Score:2)
Up to now the record of theoretical physics prediction error was ~10^120 for the dark energy (vacuum) density. Great achievement guys!
Abstract physics (Score:2)
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.
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.