11 ms·
Universe expected to decay in 10⁷⁸ years, much sooner than previously thought
- tsumnia 1y agoGlad to see my Collapsing Universe Theory is starting to happen
- divbzero 1y agoRelative to that time scale we are still, at ~10¹⁰ years, in the opening moments of the universe.
- hinkley 1y agoIf an age of the universe passed for every year the universe has already existed, we'd still have some time left at the end.
- Etheryte 1y agoSo Hawking radiation moves the estimate from the previous 10^1100 to 10^78 years. That's a pretty drastic change, but naturally, not exactly something to go and worry about. Most of us would be lucky to make it to 10^2, so there's still some way to go.
- busyant 1y agoget your affairs in order.
- coolcase 1y agoAnother 10^3 would be good for humanity
- lordfrito 1y agoThe exponent going 1100 to 78 is pretty large error... huge 93% reduction... hopefully they have high confidence in the new value, otherwise humanity might be looking at 1 more big problem this century.
- immibis 1y agoIt's actually a 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% reduction and yes that is the correct number of 9's.
- stirlo 1y agoYep the difference between 10^78 and 10^1100 is approximately 10^1100…
- wewewedxfgdf 1y agoDespite it being quite a way out it's still a little sad to think the end is coming.
- rswail 1y ago"quite a way out"... is doing a lot of work in that sentence.
- keepamovin 1y ago[flagged]
- aspenmayer 1y ago> whuffie I started to read this book, but never finished it, but the whuffie idea has legs. Stuck with me longer than many ideas from books I did finish. Need to pick it up again. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_and_Out_in_the_Magic_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_and_Out_in_the_Magic_King...
- tobias_irmer 1y agoTo me that still sounds like forever.
- MOARDONGZPLZ 1y agoI hope they’re working on finding a way to massively decrease the net entropy in the universe after this.
- andreareina 1y agoUnfortunately there is as yet insufficient data for a meaningful answer
- watt 1y agoCrack on with it and don't keep us in the dark!
- coolcase 1y agoThe way to do that is to do the most unlikely things
- dvh 1y ago> Previous studies, which did not take this effect into account, put the lifetime of white dwarfs at 10^1100 years That's some kind of typo no? I've only heard previous estimates for white dwarf to be trillions of years, that is significantly shorter that 10^1100 Edit: never mind, by lifetime that me proton decay, not how long they shine light
- vijaybritto 1y agoMy shower is theory is that there are infinite universes getting created all the time and we can never know about it because we're restricted in this universe. I love having these talks with my daughter.
- Y_Y 1y agoThere's a teapot orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars too.
- A_D_E_P_T 1y agoThat's almost the mainstream position in physics as of 2025 -- that cosmic inflation never stopped, that it produces universes beyond number, and we're in one pinched-off region of it. You'd like this book: https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262547222/an-infinity-of-worlds/ https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262547222/an-infinity-of-worlds...
- vijaybritto 1y agoThis is beautiful!
- hinkley 1y agoThe trouble would be that even if we sensed other universes we might not be able to go there unless we can create our own pocket universes. There's no guarantee that an adjacent universe has the same rules of physics. All of the enzymes in your body might stop working if you stepped into even a slightly different universe. You could just turn into a gas, and not in a good way.
- ourmandave 1y ago[flagged]
- Joker_vD 1y agoHuh. When I've tried to sell my soul, I was scolded that trying to sell something you don't own in the first place is bad style. Oh, and they've also changed my last name to "Asshole" in all of my papers, such pettiness :/ I think you've gotten away pretty well.
- anilakar 1y agoI had calculated I could finally afford to retire after some 10^228 years. Looks like I can safely nuke my pension savings now.
- nindalf 1y agoI wonder, is immortality a boon or a curse? So many depictions of immortality show the person suffering. At least there's an upper bound on the suffering though, only 10^78 years.
- lblume 1y agoAssuming life to be entirely physical, of course.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- ImHereToVote 1y agoDon't worry. You still get to experience things when your fermionic matter is converted into bosons. Have fun.
- m1117 1y agoAI is going to take over anyways
- coolcase 1y agoIt'll be 42'd like everything else
- Aetheridon 1y agoso i wonder what comes after?
- willis936 1y agoA fun tool to think around such things are Penrose diagrams. Personally I'm a little dubious of strong claims of what will happen in the distant future since we have such incomplete models of physics today. It takes GUTs to predict the future. https://youtu.be/mht-1c4wc0Q https://youtu.be/mht-1c4wc0Q
- voidUpdate 1y agoThe Credits
- Lerc 1y agoIf there is nothing left, does time pass? Does it pass but is meaningless? Does it no longer exist? The same question goes for space. Is there any size to the nothingness? To go further when you have notions like inflation, can you have nothing that is increasing in volume? That would suggest a change in state an thus a sense of not yet ended. It would be a weird thing for nothingness to change state. It seems like fertile soil for sci-fi. Imagine if space itself was kind of Turing complete and once the noise of matter ended it could start the real work, which of course would be simulating the next universe.
- blueflow 1y agoIt is written The researchers calculated that the process of Hawking radiation theoretically also applies to other objects with a gravitational field but: doesn't this only apply if these objects if they have some sort of decay process going on? There are nuclides that have never been observed decaying. I would expect a white dwarf to burn out, go through radioactive decay (unstable nuclides -> stable ones) and end up as inert rock (stable nuclides) at background temperature.
- dist-epoch 1y agoRegular "stable nuclides" stuff which falls into a black hole gets spit out as Hawking radiation, so no, this is a gravitational process, radioactive decay is a standard model one.
- jfengel 1y agoHawking radiation doesn't require decay. Pairs of particles appear spontaneously. One falls into the gravitational field, losing energy. The net energy loss comes from the gravitational field of the object, and its mass decreases. We don't have details on just what that means at a Standard Model level, but the net loss of energy means something is going to disappear even without any kind of previously understood decay.
- dist-epoch 1y ago> Pairs of particles appear spontaneously. One falls into the gravitational field, losing energy. That's not really true. Even Hawking admitted that's it's a simplification he did for his popular science book of what really is going on. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxVssUb0MsA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxVssUb0MsA
- leptons 1y agoHawking never knew "what really is going on". He wrote some nice hypotheses, but he never knew for sure, and was not ever close to knowing.
- terabytest 1y agoAs someone who doesn’t know much about this, I'm curious: If humanity survived far into the future, could we plausibly develop ways to slow or even halt the decay of the universe? Or is this an immutable characteristic of our universe, meaning humanity will inevitably fizzle out along with the universe?
- saberience 1y agoSee The Last Question, by Isaac Asimov: https://users.ece.cmu.edu/~gamvrosi/thelastq.html https://users.ece.cmu.edu/~gamvrosi/thelastq.html
- Vox_Leone 1y agoIt's interesting to note, that the Universal AC in “The Last Question” did not hallucinate an answer. Instead, its response—"INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR MEANINGFUL ANSWER"—is a model of intellectual honesty.
- mykowebhn 1y agoWhy, so we can extend the 10^78 years? I'm not sure you truly understand how large 10^78 years is, or even 10^10 years.
- suddenlybananas 1y agoWhile it seems doubtful that people will last that long, in 10^78 years, one would think those people alive at the time would want the universe to continue.
- rswail 1y agoHumanity has existed for 3x10^6 years (give or take), which is 1 x 10^-72 of that time period. We don't need to worry, it is highly unlikely that humanity as we recognize it will exist.
- 1y ago
- Extropy_ 1y agoThis is the original paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.14734 https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.14734 They say their findings set "a general upper limit for the lifetime of matter in the universe."
- fsiefken 1y agoOk, well, surviving beyond 1 billion years and various extinction level events, asteroids, comets, nuclear wars, are are the first priority, we'll worry about this later. Perhaps we can set up a secret program where AI randomly selects individuals based on merit, character to get the latest in life extension treatments, philosophical and spiritual education so they can guide us (with AI assistence) into the future and beyond the solar system. If we survive, 'we' most probably don't exist by that time in any recognisable shape or form.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 1y agoI suspect we have more immediate problems than "can we survive the next n billion years".
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 1y agoThere have already been close calls with nukes. No way in hell we last another hundred.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 1y agoIf only it was nukes. I'm afraid we're more likely to go out with a whimper. The fertility rates have plummeted and there's no reason to believe those will rise back to replacement level.
- larholm 1y agoThere is also no reason to believe that the fertility rates would go to zero. To an outside observer, we might simply be reaching a new equilibrium. The idealized Star Trek society of production automation and exploratory self fulfillment might only be possible, and sustainable, if we are a billion people. That is still plenty enough people to continue our ever accelerating and vast exploration of culture, science and space.
- rTX5CMRXIfFG 1y agoWhat values do you think we should optimize for?
- Ygg2 1y agoGood. Maybe now they can prove Hawking radiation in something that isn't a bath tub. Or an oven.
- Ekaros 1y agoOne more argument not to do anything about climate change. After all universe is going decay shortly...
- thom 1y agoAh, just time for another bath. Pass me the sponge somebody, will you?
- andrewstuart 1y agoHow can the universe come from an infinite point and have no Centre.
- stavros 1y agoOh no! What are we going to do about this?
- lightbendover 1y ago[dead]
- maaaaattttt 1y agoI suppose this time is expressed in earth years? Or what would this duration mean on a Universe scale? Also given the nature of space-time (the time and gravity relationship) wouldn't time be almost still once, let's say, year 10⁷⁷ is reached?
- pixl97 1y agoIsn't time relative? If you were in a place where time was still you'd have no idea it were the case. Time would still tick at one second per second. You could only tell when you looked at some other object/patch of space that had a different ticking clock.
- maaaaattttt 1y agoTime is relative, absolutely (I had to do it, sorry). I guess in these articles they mean 10^77 years for an observer on earth. My understanding is if I was, somehow, waiting inside a black hole it would take much less time for me to observe the universe decaying. And if i'm not mistaken, then I wonder what does that mean for the universe as a whole. Maybe the question doesn't make sense when taking the whole universe as being the "observer"...
- Zorass 1y ago[dead]
- rswail 1y agoPeople will be gathering at the Restaurant At The End Of the Universe with Douglas Adams as the host.
- chasing 1y agoProbably on a Thursday. I never could get the hang of Thursdays.
- octocop 1y agothe term "sooner" in this case is, you know, relative
- jmclnx 1y ago>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. Well I can predict the next trend, launching very rich people's body into space so it will last 10^90 years :)
- pixl97 1y agoDepends what you mean by last. Over periods of time that long it's much more likely you'll run into some other object, say fall into a gravity well or something like that. Even if you don't, pure erosion from neutral hydrogen and space dust will have disintegrated your capsule long before then.
- IamLoading 1y agoIf humans end up existing at 10^77 years. You would hope and imagine that they would be prepared for the decay?
- recursive 1y agoWell, that's only 10% of the way there, so they'd still have most of the time left.
- hinkley 1y agoLet the grandkids worry about it. Now would you be a pal and hand me another another atomic mimosa?
- recursive 1y agoIt would be the great-great-great-... Actually, there aren't enough electrons in this system to encode all the great-s needed to express the name of the generation. I'm all for thinking of the children, but planning at that range is probably impossible.
- hathym 1y agowith what's going on, not sure if human will exist in the next 10 years
- JohnMakin 1y agoBad news for Boltzmann brains
- matheusd 1y agoIs it though? It is my understanding that the quantum fluctuations that give rise to BBs will still exist, even after (and specially after) the evaporation of black holes (perhaps assuming no Big Rip).
- JohnMakin 1y agoIt's just a joke but the average number of years for a spontaneous quantum fluctuation to produce a boltzmann brain was calculated at something like 10^500 years. You're right that the processes involved would still remain barring some kind of big rip event.
- squigz 1y agoDoes this mean such an event could produce, say, an entire universe? If so, does this theoretically mean that a cyclic universe is possible in this way, and that if one were to go far enough - impossibly, unfathomably far - you might find the remnants of other universes?
- immibis 1y agoThe theory of Boltzmann brains is that you're way more likely to get just a brain (including false memories of a planet earth and a whole visibile universe around it), than to get a brain, a planet earth, and a whole visible universe around it. So the chance that any of that is real, given that a brain exists to perceive it, is infinitesimal. We are probably just floating human brains that popped into the vastness of space three microseconds ago, complete with false memories of the distant past. To dispel a misconception: They're not some hypothetical type of brain that exists as pure quantum fluctuations (though those are even more likely). Boltzmann was talking about the probability of actual flesh-and-blood human brains arising spontaneously out of the vacuum.
- dan_can_code 1y agoDamn. That ruins my retirement plans
- bdangubic 1y agojust in time for your 401k to recover :)
- KingOfCoders 1y agoOne of my favorite Wikipedia pages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_far_future https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_far_future
- lattalayta 1y agoIn video form: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uD4izuDMUQA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uD4izuDMUQA
- tarsius 1y agoFor dramatic effect, my monitor turned off right after "By this point, distant galaxies and starts are receding so fast that their light has become undetectable."
- rwoerz 1y agoMy favourite sleep aid video.
- alexey-salmin 1y agoThere's also this lovely musical video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMJNta-okRw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMJNta-okRw The "no more strength, no way out" part kills me every time I watch it.
- butlike 1y agoSeems like unproven mumbo jumbo after about the halfway point
- VagabundoP 1y agoHere's my favorite youtube version of this: https://youtu.be/uD4izuDMUQA https://youtu.be/uD4izuDMUQA
- thih9 1y ago> in 10k years (…) the average length of a solar day will be 1⁄30 of an SI second longer than it is today. Looks like a new test case scenario for libraries that handle time/date.
- mediumsmart 1y agoso many years - and how many miles?
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- belter 1y agoDid Broadcom acquire this Universe?
- foobarkey 1y agoMy pet theory: all atoms decay back to hydrogen given enough time, gravity pulls them together, stars form, the universe is one big loop that self resets :)
- ewzimm 1y agoYou're in good company. Something similar, minus the hydrogen phase, is proposed by Roger Penrose: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycles_of_Time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycles_of_Time
- 6gvONxR4sf7o 1y agoI went to a talk of his on CCC ages ago, and it was such a fascinating combination of geometry, causality, and asymptotics. I have absolutely no clue whether it's reasonable physically, but independent of that, it's just a really elegant fusion of topics in a fun to think about way. Worth a read for anyone who just appreciates elegant new ways of combining mathematical structures.
- sellmesoap 1y agoI've also seen this talk, at the behest of some spaced out friends of mine, an amazing experience and I still think about the universe through the lens of that talk!
- mensetmanusman 1y agoApparently time ceases when absolutely all mass is gone, because mass is required for a clock. This of course requires the decay of protons.
- MattPalmer1086 1y agoWhy would time cease because all the measuring devices were gone?
- 1y ago
- A_D_E_P_T 1y agoIt's nonsense. See this comment on their previous paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.07628 https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.07628 The authors of the comment show that the "gravitational pair-production" rate used in the work in OP comes from truncating the covariant heat-kernel (proper-time) expansion of the one-loop effective action at second order in curvature, an approximation that is valid only in weak-field regions where all curvature invariants satisfy |R| · ℓ² ≪ 1 (where ℓ is the Compton wavelength). When that same expression is pushed into the high-curvature interior of a neutron star -- where the inequalities fail by many orders of magnitude -- the series is no longer asymptotic and its early terms generate a spurious imaginary part. Because the paper's entire mass-loss mechanism and lifetime bound follow from that uncontrolled imaginary term, its conclusions collapse. Simply put, it doesn't even correspond to known experiments. It's entirely driven by a narrow artefact and has no physical basis.
- PaulHoule 1y agoThe authors wrote a reply to that comment https://arxiv.org/pdf/2308.12326 https://arxiv.org/pdf/2308.12326 I think about how some relativists think you could see a Hawking Radiation like effect if you're accelerating https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unruh_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unruh_effect although the idealized case of endless acceleration implies a certain kind of horizon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rindler_coordinates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rindler_coordinates maybe the horizon doesn't matter much,.
- A_D_E_P_T 1y agoThere's a lot wrong with that reply -- it mostly just shifts the goalposts without answering the central objections raised in the comment. Much of the reply revolves around whether the mixed invariant G=E⋅B appears at leading or higher order in the QED Schwinger result. But the comment's critique used the constant-field Schwinger problem only as a check that the authors' master formula fails against a case with an exact answer; the real complaint is that the same failure occurs for curved-spacetime examples where the exact result is known to vanish. Debating G is fine, but you can't ignore the gravitational case either. The reply repeatedly says the comment is "outside the realm of applicability" of the formula -- as though that were the comment's fault! But if the formula cannot survive the very checks the authors themselves hold up (Schwinger with B≠0, Ricci-flat space), the burden is on the authors to (severely) restrict their own claims, not on critics to ignore the failure modes.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- lawlessone 1y agoi'll have to move that meeting forward.
- jeff_carr 1y ago/remindme in 10^60 years
- gazarubbleparty 1y ago[flagged]
- wwilim 1y agoBetter get around to painting those Warhammer minis soon
- hinkley 1y agoI gotta start working on my reading backlog. Luckily I already returned all my library books.
- 1970-01-01 1y agoUpgrade to Universe 2.0 before our EOL date of 10⁷⁸ and receive a free 10⁸ month trial of Universe+ with cosmic karma monitoring and additional features such as dark mode.
- usui 1y agoI... I thought we already had dark mode..
- kridsdale1 1y agoNo. The CMBR of the current universe gives a nice comforting grey. Upgrade today for VantaBlack cosmos, guaranteed no EM at all!
- marcosdumay 1y agoThermodynamic purists hate this thing!
- eGQjxkKF6fif 1y agocranks up music to 999999 dB
- AceJohnny2 1y agough, no zero-point energy? What a regression.
- JadeNB 1y ago> No. The CMBR of the current universe gives a nice comforting grey. Upgrade today for VantaBlack cosmos, guaranteed no EM at all! Offer not available for Stuart Semple. (Incidentally, if you don't know about this wonderful feud, it's worth reading up on it. If you know a little bit about it but have not kept up with the news, it may give a flavor of the whole to know that Stuart Semple's latest troll (that I am aware of) was changing his name to Anish Kapoor.)
- JRCharney 1y agoI wish the universe would give me the option not to restart and apply this update right in the middle of a project! It's not like I was working on something or had my browser tabs the way that I like them.
- speckx 1y agoTime to dig into that game backlog on Steam.
- charlieyu1 1y agoIt's the first time I see unicode exponent numbers actually get used
- foreigner 1y agoMy HN reader displays this topic as "Universe expected to decay in 10 years, much sooner than previously thought". And it's not wrong, that _is_ much sooner than previously thought!
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- munificent 1y agoI mean, it's already decaying. So it will be decaying in 10 years too. It's really a question of when it will stop decaying.
- Bluestein 1y agoThere go my vacations! :)
- nkrisc 1y agoIt used to be decaying. It's still decaying, but it used to, too.
- wpasc 1y agoThe Universe asked me, "Guess what? I'm decaying" I said, "Dude, you've gotta give me time to guess"
- shikon7 1y agoIf there is nobody left to observe when it stops decaying, will it ever stop decaying?
- Traubenfuchs 1y agoComplete/Finish might be clearer.
- isk517 1y agoConsidering 10^1100 years was the previously postulated time to decay then, assuming the Netherlands Research School for Astronomy is correct in their 10^78 years calculation, 10 years is still significantly closer to the correct date.
- graypegg 1y agoDamn... got to adjust the roadmap. Universe heat death milestone just got moved up.
- mspaeth2 1y ago[flagged]
- seydor 1y agoBad news for my proton decay stocks
- feverzsj 1y agoThat's really bad news for immortals.
- hinkley 1y agoBetter make friends with the creation immortals so you get invited to their parties.
- cozzyd 1y agogood news, we'll never need more than a 512 bit time_t
- unzadunza 1y agoAccording to The End of Everything (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/52767659-the-end-of-everything https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/52767659-the-end-of-ever...) decay is only one of the ways it all ends. Unfortunately most (all?) the other ways happen way earlier.
- fuzzer371 1y agoSo... Who cares. No one is going to be around even 10^3 years from now. It doesn't help anyone to know, and there's nothing we can do about it.
- the__alchemist 1y agoI am suspicious this attitude is responsible for much personal and environmental destruction. I wonder how we can remove it from humanity; it is one of the most dangerous pervasive mindsets for our, and the biosphere's survival.
- JesseTG 1y agoIf anyone here happens to be immortal, how will you plan around this?
- nottorp 1y agoIn the long run we're all dead aren't we?
- vasco 1y agoAnd taxes
- nottorp 1y agoI believe most jurisdictions stop taxing you when you're dead.
- thebruce87m 1y agoYou were dead before. On average you’ve been dead the whole time.
- deadbabe 1y agoWhen we’re dead, I know we don’t feel anything, but when the universe also becomes dead I wonder if we’ll not feel anything to a degree that we didn’t even know possible, a death beyond death, if that makes sense. It’s like not only are we dead and gone, but our entire life is gone so thoroughly that it’s like it never even happened, and if it never even happened, what the hell is this moment we experience now? Just a passing illusion as a universe explodes?
- Workaccount2 1y agoThat is about within a factor of 1000 of the number of atoms in the universe. So divide the universe into 1000 compartments of equal atom count, and there is about 1 year left for each atom in there. To put this in perspective, a drop of water is about 1 trillion groups of 100 billion atoms (or 100 sextillion atoms). So, we got some time left.
- JadeNB 1y ago> That is about within a factor of 1000 of the number of atoms in the universe. So divide the universe into 1000 compartments of equal atom count, and there is about 1 year left for each atom in there. This sounds tedious, but it might help to realize you can just gather all the atoms together first, and then count only every 1000th one.
- fallingknife 1y agoI was thinking that since apparently Hawking radiation applies to all objects (I thought it was just black holes), maybe it would be interesting to try to actually observe it on the moon. But then I ran the numbers and, if the authors are correct, the moon is losing about 1 electron mass to Hawking radiation every 10^37 years!
- BlandDuck 1y ago"Estimate of the remaining time before universe decays expected to be revised 10^76 times before its finally over" (conservatively assuming the estimate will be revised about once every hundred years as we learn more).
- jpease 1y agoAccepting table reservations now, you won’t want to miss this.
- hinkley 1y agoSorry I'm busy that day. Can we schedule for the following... oh. How about the previous Tuesday?
- Vasniktel 1y agoOMG, the economy
- tgma 1y agoCould be just one accidental Ctrl+C away.
- kqr2 1y agoTLDR: Hawking radiation can cause things besides black holes to evaporate. Man and moon: 10^90 years 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. Of course, the researchers subtly note, there are other processes that may cause humans and the moon to disappear faster than calculated.
- wpollock 1y agoDiets not working for you? Try the new Hawking radiation weigh loss plan! Guaranteed to lose half your mass in only 10^45 years!
- beau_g 1y agoBad news for Bryan Johnson, he will have to adjust some of his long term plans
- paulmooreparks 1y ago> In 1975, physicist Stephen Hawking postulated that contrary to the theory of relativity, particles and radiation could escape from a black hole. At the edge of a black hole, two temporary particles can form, and before they merge, one particle is sucked into the black hole and the other particle escapes. Hasn't this explanation been discredited for a while? https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/hawking-radiation-black-hole-evaporation/ https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/hawking-radiation-bl... > Black holes are not decaying because there’s an infalling virtual particle carrying negative energy; that’s another fantasy devised by Hawking to “save” his insufficient analogy. Instead, black holes are decaying, and losing mass over time, because the energy emitted by this Hawking radiation is slowly reducing the curvature of space in that region. Once enough time passes, and that duration ranges from approximately 10^68 to 10^103 years for black holes of realistic masses, these black holes will have evaporated entirely. https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/hawking-radiation-really-work/ https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/hawking-radiation-re...
- zero_bias 1y agoBoth explanations are merely simplifications of a truly complex phenomenon, so both are valid. Reducing space-time curvature is equivalent to the absorption of a virtual particle with negative energy
- zombot 1y agoDarn, I'll have to cancel my party plans for that weekend.
- weregiraffe 1y agoOh no, all my plans for the 10^100 year celebration party!
- zero_bias 1y agoEvaporation isn’t as bad as false vacuum decay. I thought the news would be about that. Fast vacuum decay would be much worse, as civilization can withstand matter loss but not the ultimate false vacuum decay
- haarolean 1y ago>ultimate Who knows? Maybe when and if that happens, civilizations will be advanced enough to try to reverse this: manipulating the local Higgs field, pocket universes, and counter-decay waves
- zero_bias 1y agoThe problem is that false vacuum decay spreads at the speed of light, leaving no time for preparation, and the laws of physics would be completely altered without warning. Perhaps future civilizations could resist it, but with our current understanding, it’s a doomsday in a blink of an eye
- ximm 1y agoDamn, I had planned to go shopping on that day!
- lvncelot 1y agoI always assumed that an event horizon was a necessary condition for hawking radiation (or the Unruh effect, for inertial frames). Interesting that this apparently isn't the case, and the authors rather predict all objects with mass to have this property.
- gigatexal 1y agoOther gravitational bodies radiating via hawking radiation is a bold claim. Has this work been validated? Challenged? Confirmed?
- nomercy400 1y agoI wonder how you decide to measure things in years on this scale. I mean, in about 10^10 years, the whole concept of a 'year' will stop to exist. What will you do then? I would expect something like 'tera-seconds', or something related to a cosmological constant but at cosmological scale, like the time to decay hydrogen or number of caesium vibrations for example, but then scaled at AU scale. A value not related to time or space.
- mr_mitm 1y agoA year is defined in multiples of caesium vibrations. Not originally, obviously, but in this context it is. You cannot nearly measure any of these time periods precisely enough that any of this matters anyway.
- scotty79 1y agoThis is as removed from any observation and predictive utility as counting angels on the head of a pin.
- kristel100 1y ago[dead]
- odyssey7 1y agoThere’s no way that we happen to exist in just the first 10^78 years of eternity.
- tomcam 1y agoNow I feel like an idiot for paying off my house
- nopelynopington 1y agoBut I just bought a house in the universe!
- revskill 1y agoWhy ?
- nopelynopington 1y agoWell I didn't know it was going to decay so bloody soon
- xunil2ycom 1y agoI better update my will.
- rendall 1y agoI don't know why 10^78 unsettles me more than 10^1100 does.
- keepamovin 1y agoAw fuck!! I was looking forward to curing a few more deaths and bringin the Bitchun Society to yet more barbarian tribes in the outer reaches. I wonder if all my whuffie will last that long? I really don't want to deadhead so hopefully there's plenty more interesting things to do in the tail end. Hahaha :)