Talk:Timeline of the far future/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

OK, Poincare recurrence

I am not nearly qualified to make a solid assessment of this, but I've asked on a science forum and they made it pretty clear that the expansion of the universe means Poincare recurrence can never happen. As a rule, I don't include things that could never happen; for instance, I could include the moment all the planets in the Solar System will be aligned to within 1 degree, but that will never happen because by then all the planets in the Solar System will have been shaved off by stellar encounters. But really the problem is that the paper itself doesn't make this claim for the universe; it makes it for "a hypothetical black hole" with the mass of the universe. As such, it isn't really a prediction of the future, but simply a long period of time, and probably belongs in Terasecond and longer rather than here. The person who reinstated it cited another forum post in response, but I'm not sure whether it is tied to the paper cited. Serendi^podous 20:36, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

@SSacher The Don Page paper says: "One can also amusingly calculate that if information is not lost, the Poincare recurrence time of an isolated black hole in a rigid nonpermeable box... should be (blah blah blah)." But there are no rigid nonpermeable boxes in the universe (which is perhaps why Page says "amusingly calculate" and doesn't himself seem to take the calculation too seriously), so the Universe's expansion will dissipate any evaporating black hole out to infinity and prevent it from recurring in a Page-ian manner. As far as Motl's stackexchange post, Motl is talking about recurrence by quantum fluctuations some kind of holographic argument in empty de Sitter space (that is, a quantum vacuum), which would be a different calculation with a different number. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 04:34, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

It's not SSacher; it's this guy. I've left a message on his talk page. Perhaps I should give him a day or two before I revert it. Serendi^podous 21:43, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Moved it back to Terasecond and longer, which is where it came from and where it really belongs. Serendi^podous 13:19, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Sources for future pole stars

The issue is that mostly the sources giving direct quotes of future pole stars will be approximate and not really academically written, even if the source is a NASA website. They will be using the common approximation of the axial precession of 26,000 years, and they don't go into any more detail because this is basically seen as trivial information. However, axial precession is actually something that can be readily calculated with great precision (assuming there isn't much proper motion), and standard software tools exist for this such as Stellarium. This is a difficult type of information to cite, and I think the reference in the Vega article for an actual year as given by standard software tools is probably the best example to follow, probably supplemented by direct quotes from published sources which give the approximate number.--Pharos (talk) 16:48, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

If the information is manually calculated, then it needs to be cited as such. Preferably with citations including how and why the calculations were done. Serendi^podous 17:10, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Suggested split of 'Future of the Earth, the Solar System and the Universe'

This is an exceedingly long section, perhaps it would be best to divide it into 'Future of the Earth, Solar System, and Milky Way' and 'Fate of the Universe'.--Pharos (talk) 18:14, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

It's actually been getting shorter recently, so I don't see any reason to split it. Serendi^podous 23:48, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

"All life will die" when Earth gets too hot

Part of the article claims:

"Earth's surface temperature [...] reaches an average of ~420 K (147 °C, 296 °F). At this point life, now reduced to unicellular colonies in isolated, scattered microenvironments such as high-altitude lakes or subsurface caves, will completely die out."

Isn't this a little shortsighted? Given the current existence of extremophiles and the fact that this heating will happen over the course of 3 billion years (not overnight), doesn't it stand to reason that SOME form of life will evolve to adapt to the rising temperature? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.197.161.162 (talk) 23:49, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

It's actually a revised figure; the original figure was about 1 billion years. Serendi^podous 00:08, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

All matter collapses into black holes

A Youtube video inspired by this article has piqued me; it makes the claim, which it then refutes, that our Sun will become a black hole. Thing is, that's what the source this page quotes actually says. I think this needs to be clarified, but I'm not clear on Dyson's reasoning. If anyone could explain the mechanism in plain English, I would appreciate it. Thanks. Serendi^podous 15:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I've had a go at explaining it. I think I got it right. Let me know if I didn't. Serendi^podous 10:52, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Dyson is correct, the youtube guy isn't taking quantum tunnelling into account. You could omit the claim since Dyson specifically states that he's assuming in that timeline virtual black holes don't exist, but if you assume that they don't exist then it probably means we don't understand quantum gravity well enough to say what will happen to neutron stars. Or to put it another way, if some mysterious process prevents an isolated baryon from losing its baryon number by tunnelling through a virtual black hole state, then this same mysterious process might also get in the way of an entire neutron star losing its baryon number by tunnelling into a real black hole and then evaporating. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 00:55, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

This list needs to be broken

It's had a massive increase in info recently (thanks Pharos!) but it's now topping 100 K and is getting hard to read. Thing is, I don't really know how to break it up; any breaking of the first list would be arbitrary, unless we created more millennium articles, and while we certainly have enough for a "13th millennium" article, what with all the "10,000 years from now" predictions, we don't really have enough for an 11th or 12 millennium article. I've been thinking maybe the "Astronomical events" section could be moved to its own article. Serendi^podous 20:01, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

If you mean different articles, there could be a single article for 11th-20th millennia or 11th-100th millenia. Breaking out astronomical events sounds fine to me; I wish there were a better name for them though to exclude things like supernovas. If you mean breaking up the main timeline into separate sections within the article, you could divide them into "before the sun burns out", "as the sun dies", and "after the sun burns out". Rolf H Nelson (talk) 03:21, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Galactic year

The four cited values for the galactic year in the given citation do not appear to have a "standard", so it seems logical to average them out and pick the number closest to the average, i.e., 240 million years. When given a range of values that would conflict with later values in the timeline, I prefer to pick a median. Serendi^podous 17:47, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Arecibo message

The Arecibo message was not actually sent to Messier 13 so there will be no reply from there. I'm removing it.Debouch (talk) 11:43, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Er, yes it was, according to SETI, the cited sources, and the Wikipedia page. Got a source to back up your position? Serendi^podous 11:58, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

The source used in the article says that it was "directed toward" the cluster and then goes on to say that the cluster won't be there when the message arrives. Could you point a rocket at the Moon where it is now and expect to land there? Would you then say with confidence that you sent a rocket to the Moon?Debouch (talk) 12:36, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough; but it still has a destination point, and that point is a finite distance, so it will still reach that distance. I've reworded it and removed the return date. Serendi^podous 13:13, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I think it is actually going there (!). This forum posting is obviously not a RS, but it mentions an interview with Frank Drake where he asserts the message will hit M13, and interestingly, there is even a calculation farther down that M13 will only move 1.4 arcminutes with respect to us, in which case it certainly will hit. I think we should try to confirm the calculation.--Pharos (talk) 17:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, this looks more legitimate now. Here is an actual letter from Frank Drake, published as a "correction" on a Science 2.0 website article.--Pharos (talk) 17:40, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

New format

I've had a go at reorganizing the format to make the list more navigable and readable. On the other hand, the "story" it tells has been somewhat disrupted. Let me know if it is a step too far. Serendi^podous 13:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I like the changes you have made and feel they add to the quality of the article. What 'story' do you feel is disrupted in the changes? Because most of the article is broken into tables with short descriptions, I can understand how flow of the article is disrupted. Overall, I believe the readability of the article has improved. --Triesault (talk) 14:09, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I like the changes, though I don't think I agree with splitting off Timeline of far future astronomical events into a separate article. Taking out the calendric stuff, it's not actually very long, and some of it is indeed of general interest imo, particularly the pole star stuff.--Pharos (talk) 18:46, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

That wasn't me; you'll have to take that up with Strangenight. I'm not entirely clear what he wants to do; right now his project is just duplicating information already in other pages. But I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt until he finishes it. Serendi^podous 22:24, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

When I did that I was thinking the timelines dealing with astronomical, calendar, human and technology events should have articles of their own. I never did pursue that. If either of you think the content of "Timeline of Far Future Astronomical Events" should go back into this article and mark this page for deletion, that's okay with me. As far as "List of Future Astronomical Events" goes, I created this page originally as a companion page to the above. However, I believe this page warrants a presence on Wikipedia regardless. StrangeNight (talk) 05:38, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Orbital half-life?

Does that mean that the longer Chiron stays out there, the more stable it gets? Serendi^podous 06:46, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I would believe the opposite is true. Centaur orbits are unstable as they pass near larger planets. The probability of a small solar system body in the Kuiper belt passing near an outer planet increases with time, e.g. an object is perturbed by Neptune's gravity well. I guess there is a probability of a centaur finding a stable orbit but I wouldn't say it necessarily becomes more stable with time. What do you think? --Triesault (talk) 14:29, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking in terms of radioactive half-life, where the fewer atoms there are, the longer it takes for them to decay (it takes the same amount of time to decay an 8th as it does half). Thinking about it, I suppose you could reverse it so that the probability of a perturbation doubles every x years, if that's what it means. Dunno though. Serendi^podous 14:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Nope, "orbital half-life" does not mean "the longer Chiron stays out there, the more stable it gets"; see half life. That said, as Triesault points out, the centaur's "decay" (I'm assuming we mean ejection or collision?) probability decreases due to the possibility of its finding a stable orbit, so the decay probability is not strictly exponential like radioactive decay is. But half-life can be generically applied to phenomena that are "sort of" exponential, and since the cited source specifically says "half life", the article text is correct as it stands. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 17:55, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

On an unrelated point about the half-life of Chiron, I've changed the listing from that of the first discovered Centaur (1My), to a mean for the group of Centaurs that have been studied (2.7My). Another option might be to list it as a range, 540 kyr to 32 Myr. I initially thought Chiron was the largest known Centaur (it was, but isn't anymore), which would have given it more legitimacy as the one to be mentioned, but it still is probably the best-known of the lot by far, and I'm torn on how to represent this along with the mean number (which may be somewhat artificial, given that it involves a grab-bag of selected Centaur objects).--Pharos (talk) 15:51, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Maximal time for terraforming of Mars

In the future of humanity section, 100 000+ years is claimed to be the maximal estimated time for the full terraforming of Mars. How can the time be maximal if there is a + sign to the year? Does that mean that it is possible for it to be infinitely long? Then what's the point of having the figure anyway?The Average Wikipedian (talk) 15:52, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations

Just a note of congratulations to the editors who put this article together. In Elmo Keep's All Dressed Up For Mars and Nowhere to Go, she describes the effect this article had on her: "By the time I got through to the end I suffered a panic attack of such intensity the walls of the room appeared distended in my vision, and I momentarily lost the ability to hear. Then I lay on the floor of my office and cried for a very long time." Can there be higher praise? -- ToE 03:06, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you :) It does seem to have an effect on people, though I've noticed that effect has lessened since I introduced the new format. I think the narrative kinda lost its potency. Serendi^podous 09:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Do you mean the reformatting from a bulleted list to the current table? -- ToE 19:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

No, I mean when I broke up the "Future of the Earth, the Solar System and the Universe" section into separate lists. Was a good idea (the list was getting too long) but it seems to have killed off a lot of interest. The fact that the BBC made a barely credited infographic out of it hasn't helped either. Still, it remains as popular as it always has been, if the viewing stats are anything to go by. It's just not as oft-mentioned as it used to be. Serendi^podous 00:14, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I put it back. I really think it's OK, and I think readers prefer it that way. Serendi^podous 18:01, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Evolutionary biology

In the first paragraph it is stated that evolutionary biology predicts how lifeforms will evolve over time. Is this true? Are there any peer-reviewed statements about the future evolution of life agreed upon by the scientific community in the same way, say, the future of the sun is agreed? We all know evolutionary biology explains how life on earth has evolved and which factors affect its evolution but, does it have long-term predictive value concerning the outcomes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.234.105.160 (talk) 18:07, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

It is true, but in a rather more limited way. Specifically, evolutionary biology can roughly predict how the level of biodiversity will change over time, given certain changes in population size or degree of isolation, e.g. allopatric speciation. It cannot, though, predict the shape that such changes in biodiversity may take in the future.--Pharos (talk) 19:08, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Lead sentence

Serendipodous, I think you made a mistake in reversing part of my recent edit to the lead. While predictions of the future can never be absolutely certain?? Really? Predictions are always speculative, as I had said. I hope you're not suggesting that science makes predictions, or that that is what the source says. As I tried to make clear in that sentence, science makes projections, not predictions, extrapolations from the present under the assumption of the continuation of processes from conditions that are known in the present. It's always "assuming present conditions", then we can anticipate "that". If / then. It's always speculative as to whether or not the "if" will happen. If it does, though, "then" follows (as long as we really understand the processes we think we do - and we've become pretty good at that). I think this article needs to make it crystal clear that science doesn't just pull stuff out of thin air, but always works from known foundations. Evensteven (talk) 18:10, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Last I checked, the very definition of a scientific hypothisis is the ability to make predictions. This is not the time or the place to raise contentious issues on the philosophy of science. Serendi^podous 17:59, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, you may have a point, if you consider astrology to be a science. But I'll get out of your way if you want to change it back. This is the time and place to make corrections, after all. By my philosophy, anyway. Evensteven (talk) 21:10, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

You appear not to know the difference between a scientific predictive hypothesis (eg: a light ball and a heavy ball will fall at the same speed) and divination. Please understand the meaning of scientific prediction before editing scientific articles. Serendi^podous 11:44, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, you're mistaken; I do know the difference. I think we've been having a clash over what the word "prediction" itself means, or at least in how it can be interpreted. The primary use of the word is for declarations that "X will happen", guaranteed. What I have been trying to get at is that a scientific "prediction" (if you must call it that, I suppose it is used that way sometimes), differs from that. You stated my point perfectly in your edit summary, saying scientific predictions are not the same thing as divination. Now, my reason for my prior edit is that while I understand the difference, and you do, not all the article's readers do. I think there are better words to use in the article to convey what science really does, and I wanted that to be "crystal clear". Science can, of course, use "prediction" when scientists are talking to each other, because no one will misunderstand. But it would be better to use a different word to tell non-scientists what science does. That was the purpose of my edit. I happened to use "projection" because that word was already present there and it seemed suitable. "Forecast" also seems reasonable to me, as in most peoples' minds it would conjure images of weather forecasts, known to be accurate often enough, but also subject to unpredictable effects. So once again, you may do to the article what seems reasonable to you (including leaving it as is). You might want to consider, however, that an edit does not always have the intention behind it as it may appear to you at first sight. We all are affected in this way by our ordinary patterns of thought, and our immediate lines of thought, and can be misled. It's happened to me often enough, so I work at looking twice. And even then I don't always get it right away. So no hard feelings here; none, I hope, at your end. Evensteven (talk) 17:00, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

230 million years in the future

It is an error to say that in 230 million years more you will not be able to predict planet´s orbit. The Lyapunov time is a moving time, it means that you cannot predict an orbit for a lpse of time longer than Lyapunov's time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.215.80.188 (talk) 15:46, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Needs to be updated

I've noticed than in "Wiki-French" and "Wiki-Italian", there are 3 addition rows at the end of "Future of the Earth, the Solar System and the Universe" section. Unfortunately I'm not familiar with those languages, but since this a featured list, it would be great if somebody translate and add those parts to this list as well. -- Tisfoon (talk) 06:34, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Those additional rows were taken down from here after someone pointed out that the "prediction" was a purely mathematical construct and could never actually happen. Serendi^podous 10:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

An object of an stellar size could be created?

In $10^{10^{10^{76.66}}}$ years, an object of an stellar object could be created exactly the same again due to ergodic hypothesis.

--Komethitsearth (talk) 18:17, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

See this discussion. Serendi^podous 18:20, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Nucleon decay and iron stars

I am looking at two adjacent table entries under the heading "Future of the Earth, the Solar System and the Universe." One entry says that at 10²⁰⁰ years all nucleons in the universe have decayed, but the next entry states that at 10¹⁵⁰⁰ years all baryonic matter has become iron-56. But iron-56 is made of nucleons, and these have all long since decayed. The 10¹⁵⁰⁰ entry is qualified by the clause "Assuming protons do not decay", but I interpret the previous 10²⁰⁰ entry to mean that by this time all nucleons will have decayed by methods other than the so-called "normal" proton decay (e.g. into a positron and a pion in ~10⁴⁰ years). So somebody set me straight here. If I am misinterpreting these entries, then is it possible to rewrite one or the other to remove whatever ambiguity I am hung up on? Thank you. 71.29.51.127 (talk) 22:26, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't have access to the source, but I think that the idea is that there are many different ways that particles might decay, but that it is not entirely proven they will decay by any of them. Serendi^podous 14:17, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Timeline of the far future. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://spaceprojects.arc.nasa.gov/Space_Projects/pioneer/PNStat.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:09, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

for God's sake, post on the talk page first!

This is a featured list! Stop tearing into it as if you know what's going on! Post your ideas here first! Serendi^podous 20:33, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Is this correct - re: next glacial period - ?

Shouldn't ″The current interglacial period ends[11] sending the Earth back into a glacial period of the current ice age, regardless of the effects of anthropogenic global warming." actually be "The current interglacial period ends[11] sending the Earth back into a glacial period of the current ice age, disregarding the effects of anthropogenic global warming." I doubt that we could make that statement regardless of anthropogenic effects, as we have no clue how much we can effect the climate in the far future. We have to disregard human influence so we can make these projections (as if there were no humanity). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.217.21.124 (talk) 12:49, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

As I read the source, the current global warming trend doesn't matter. Serendi^podous 19:39, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

The Quaternary_glaciation#Next_glacial_period article cites a 2014 textbook (possibly based on the same Science 2012 source we currently cite) stating maybe 15k (low agw gasses) to 50k years (high agw gasses), and even then only "if these calculations are correct". So the current 50k years should be rewritten to emphasize the uncertainty, or omitted. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 02:58, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Reinserted a deleted attribution. Serendi^podous 10:12, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 0 external links on Timeline of the far future. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.agci.org/dB/PDFs/03S2_MMauel_SafeFusion%3F.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:56, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Restored. Serendi^podous 09:20, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Calculation of Time Until Next Big Bang

The table cites the time until the next big bang as 10⁵⁶⁰ years, with a citation. But the cited paper calculates the probability of spontaneous, not annual, quantum fluctuations leading to a Big Bang as 10₅₆₀₀. Could someone explain the math behind this? How does a probability of 10₅₆₀₀ per instant translate into an expected time (until first occurrence) of 10⁵⁶⁰ years? In other articles on this topic, I've read statements like "We don't know when the next Big Bang will be, but we know it won't be in the next 10 billion years. 10⁵⁶⁰ years is obviously much greater than 10 billion. But where does this number come from? 70.174.128.14 (talk) 03:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you're getting your numbers from. The number in the article and cited in the citation isn't 10⁵⁶⁰ or 10⁵⁶⁰⁰. It's 10¹⁰⁵⁶, which is a number so large that it doesn't really matter what it's measured in, instants, years, whatever. Serendi^podous 07:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

When you raise a power to a power, you multiply the exponents. So 10^1056=10560. This is the number in the article, with a citation to the paper. The units are years. By contrast, the number in the paper (equation 45) is 10_{10¹⁰⁵⁶}, which is 10₅₆₀₀. This is a probability. I'm simply asking for the math, if any, that was used to convert this probability into an expected number of years. When we are dealing with time scales on this magnitude, the difference between these numbers is certainly important. Because the table lists events of the far future in chronological order, it also affects the placement of this particular row. For example, if the first number is interpreted as an annual, rather than instantaneous probability, then this row would move to the bottom. For that matter, the issue is also relevant to the critical question of whether a new universe is expected to be "born" before the current one "dies," because, according to the table, the universe reaches its final end state in more than 10⁵⁶⁰, but fewer than 10⁵⁶⁰⁰, years.

Actually, let me amend that. I thought about it some more. I was thinking in terms of 10¹⁰⁵⁶, which is 10⁵⁶⁰. But the number cited here is 10(10^56), which is much larger. I get that. Thank you for clarifying. But the basic issue still remains. Even if we assume that instants = years, I'd still like to understand the math of how we got from the probability in the paper to the value in the table. How does a probability of 10_{10¹⁰⁵⁶} translate to a time of 10¹⁰⁵⁶? 70.174.128.14 (talk) 04:07, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

That number is the probability of it happening at any one time, which, when inverted, becomes the time by which it will probably have happened. Serendi^podous 13:13, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree. But these numbers do not appear to be reciprocals. If you have math showing that they are, feel free to post. But wouldn't the reciprocal of 10¹⁰⁵⁶ be 10₁¹⁰⁵⁶, not 10₁₀¹⁰⁵⁶? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.174.128.14 (talk) 04:30, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually I think you're right; the reciprocal of the number in the paper is much bigger than that. Serendi^podous 07:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Can you update it, and change the order of the item in the table accordingly? Ignoring the difference between instants and years, I calculated the reciprocal. It's approximately 1.71 * 10^101056₅₁. Note the extra "10," which also should change the placement of the row in the table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.223.21.100 (talk) 16:33, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I already did. Serendi^podous 16:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I corrected a typo above. The expression above is correct and is expressed in years, rather than instants. The influence of this is the "-51" in the exponent.

I don't have the math or physics to compete with you folks but I am fascinated by this egregiously large number and what it means. However, I can make absolutely no sense of note [j] in the text that refers to 10¹⁰¹¹⁵ disappearing into the rounding error when multiplied by 10¹⁰¹⁰⁵⁶. Does this mean that 10¹⁰¹⁰⁵⁶ is the smallest such number or what? If anyone can clarify this for eejits like me that would be great. Thank you.75.90.65.25 (talk) 04:28, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually, turns out I don't have the math either. Turns out the number would be different if multiplied by 10¹⁰¹¹⁵. It might be interesting to include the multiple number, but it would probably be original research. Serendi^podous 17:39, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Serendipodous, thank you for your reply to my post. I see that you have removed the note in question, but it looks like you inadvertently wiped out all of the other notes as well. I will let you correct this as I have very little editing experience.

I was intrigued by the suggestion in the footnote in question that the time until the next big bang was somehow mathematically related to the number of possible orderings of elementary particles. However, the footnote seemed to imply that 10¹⁰¹⁰⁵⁶ was the time until we had an identical big bang, not just any big bang. Does the above discussion involving reciprocals treat 10¹⁰¹⁰⁵⁶ as the time until the next big bang of any sort or until the next identical big bang? If you don't have the answer that's cool; it would, however, be neat if someone in the know (the user who originally posted the footnote, perhaps?) could shed some light on the matter for us.

Perhaps it would improve the article to put the information discussed above concerning reciprocals into a footnote, so that readers would have some idea of where this gargantuan number comes from. 75.90.65.25 (talk) 21:49, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

The footnote was meant to imply that the 10¹⁰¹⁰⁵⁶ number was for any Big Bang, while the 10¹⁰¹⁰⁵⁸ number was for all possible Big Bangs assuming the same laws of physics and subatomic particles. Which would include a Big Bang that produces our exact world today. Serendi^podous 09:58, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

There is a rule of arithmetic that a^b times a^c is a^(b+c). So, for example, 2³ times 2⁴ is 2⁷, that is, 8 x 16 = 128. Letting a=10, we have that 10^b times 10^c is 10^(b+c). Now, consider 10^(10^115) times 10^(10^(10^56)). Here, b=10^115 and c=10^(10^56). So 10^(10^115) times 10^(10^(10^56)) is 10^(10^115 + 10^(10^56)). Clearly, 10^115 is microscopic compared to 10^(10^56) so, with an infinitesimal error, we may write 10^(10^115) times 10^(10^(10^56)) = 10^(10^(10^56)). I hope you will correct the "58" to "56". --Clive tooth (talk) 22:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I thought that was the case as well, initially. But I checked on a science forum and the calculation is incorrect. 10^10^115 is roughly the same as 10^10^10^2. The same rules that apply to first level exponents also apply to third level exponents so 10^10^10^2 * 10^10^10^56 = 10^10^10^(56+2) = 10^10^10^58. Serendi^podous 22:22, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry. You are wrong. Consider 2^(2^(2^2)) x 2^(2^(2^3)). 2^(2^(2^2))=2^(2^4)=2^16. 2^(2^(2^3))=2^(2^8)=2^256. So, 2^(2^(2^2)) x 2^(2^(2^3)) = 2^16 x 2^256 = 2^(16+256)=2^272. Your method would give 2^(2^(2^5)) = 2^(2^32) = 2^4294967296 : a MUCH bigger number. Btw, I am a mathematician. I have a degree in Mathematics. --Clive tooth (talk) 22:47, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

You could also type "(2^(2^(2^2)) * 2^(2^(2^3))) - 2^272" into Wolfram Alpha. The result is zero. --Clive tooth (talk) 00:08, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

This is the problem with these manual calculations. Always a danger of this sort of thing happening. Just rechecked the forum I posted on and it appears the same argument happened there too. But I missed it. So yeah. Turns out you're right, and I was right the first time. Serendi^podous 07:09, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I am glad we have managed to resolve this. We are multiply together two huge numbers here. I have no idea if those two numbers are correct - but I do know how to multiply them :) Btw, even multiplying (or dividing) 10^10^10^56 by 10^10^10^55 does not (to all intents and purposes) change it. Even changing 10^10^10^56 into 1000000^10^10^56 leaves it virtually unaltered. --Clive tooth (talk) 08:07, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

It should be noted that the calculation you are all citing, Calculation (45) within the paper, is 10 raised to -10, raised to the 10, raised to the 56. This is a probability of random inflation of a De Sitter space under certain conditions. It is not the time for a new big bang time. Searching the article throughly shows there is no other calculated value bearing the ^56. Only this 10^-10^10^56. The first negative exponent makes this a decimal, with many many zeroes in front of the calculated integer. A more proper calculation, with a real calculation as to the time necessary until repetition by any means of the current state of the universe, is found here: https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/9411193.pdf The author of this article calculated, in 1994 based on then-current statistics as to the size and total mass content of the observable universe, that the Poincarré recurrence time (the time needed to get an exact repetition of the current state of the universe) was 10^10^10^10^2.08 years. This should be the cited time for the final entry to the table, and not the 10^-10^10^56. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.128.198.171 (talk) 19:47, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Inverting the decimal gives the likely time by which it will happen. Units don't matter at that scale. Poincare recurrence is impossible in an expanding universe. Unless the universe stops expanding at some point, then Poincare recurrence can never happen. Serendi^podous 20:32, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

"All matter is liquid"? (After 10^65 years)

Two questions:

1. Should this say "all matter is fluid"? There may no longer be solids, but wouldn't there still be gases and plasmas?

2. The source says "matter is liquid at zero temperature". Does this mean matter can remain a solid at nonzero temperature? And the universe will never be at zero temperature.

101.178.204.3 (talk) 08:59, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

"Liquid" isn't a real state of matter. I is a statistical statement about the frequence of quantum flucuations. it isn't after 10^65 years, but within a time span of 10^65. At this time, every matter, if it indeed still exists and nothing unforeseeable happens, is as solid as it is now. --MGChecker (talk) 16:41, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Boltzmann brain source

The article claims that the estimated time for a Boltzmann brain to appear is $10^{10^{50}}$ years. I had a look at the source given and it says the estimated rate of the BB production is $\Gamma _{1B}\sim 10^{-10^{50}}$ (page 21 of the source). I don't know what this notation means. What does it mean? And does it really imply that the estimated time for a Boltzmann brain to appear is $10^{10^{50}}$ years? Remember WP:NOR. PeterPresent (talk) 09:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

It means that within a billion years, there is a one in $10^{10^{50}}$ chance of one occurring. Which means that the most likely time for it to occur is $10^{10^{50}}$. Years, attoseconds, gigacenturies, teramillennia, whatever. At that scale, it makes no difference. Serendi^podous 09:20, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Adding 64-bit Version of UNIX Time 2038 Problem

I thought the 64-bit version of UNIX time's Year 2038 problem might be a possible addition to technological projects or calendar predictions at 292 billion years from now, and am looking for opinions on if I should add it. As far as I can tell this error doesn't have its own page, but is described and sourced (http://stablecross.com/files/End_Of_Time.html) on the 2038 page and described in more detail with a possibly broken source on the Unix time page. My biggest hesitation is that it is considerably longer than most things outside of the first section. Collectableblob (talk) 01:20, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

It used to be on here ages ago, but it was deleted on the assumption that we probably won't be using Unix then. Serendi^podous 08:20, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I reviewed the edit and discussion, I don't think it's worth pursuing anymore. Collectableblob (talk) 19:06, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Timeline of the far future. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/~norb1/Papers/2008-milank.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100622232231/http://www.physics.berkeley.edu/research/zettl/pdf/363.NanoLet.9-Begtrup.pdf to http://www.physics.berkeley.edu/research/zettl/pdf/363.NanoLet.9-Begtrup.pdf
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5gOzK38bc?url=http://chemistry.unina.it/~alvitagl/solex/ to http://chemistry.unina.it/~alvitagl/solex/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719093559/http://www.niagaraparks.com/media/geology-facts-figures.html to http://www.niagaraparks.com/media/geology-facts-figures.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080413162401/http://www.science.org.au/nova/newscientist/104ns_011.htm to http://www.science.org.au/nova/newscientist/104ns_011.htm
• Replaced archive link http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://sunearthday.nasa.gov/2006/faq.php with https://web.archive.org/web/20100312030853/http://sunearthday.nasa.gov/2006/faq.php on http://sunearthday.nasa.gov/2006/faq.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081209003316/http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=article&access=doi&doi=10.1051%2F0004-6361%3A20035732 to http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=article&access=doi&doi=10.1051%2F0004-6361%3A20035732
• Replaced archive link http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/question64.html with https://web.archive.org/web/20110725180305/http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/question64.html on http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/question64.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:05, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Confidence?

Could we include some statement about the confidence of each statement, and it's basis? I think this list is super neat, but I also think it would be good to call out what is more likely, and what is more pure theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.14.168 (talk) 15:39, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Sources don't always give confidence, and in any case, that's kinda what sources are for, so you can check the confidence yourself. They may, after all, be completely wrong. Serendi^podous 16:53, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Alpha Centauri / Proxima Centauri

Our article Proxima Centauri states that Alpha Centauri will be closer in about 25,000 years, and the graphic in List of nearest stars and brown dwarfs#Future and past implies Alpha Centauri will be closer starting in somewhere between 24,000 and 26,000 years. Why are you restoring demonstrably false statements? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:03, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

As I said, why are you continuing to restore recently added, unsourced, incorrect information. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:49, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

[

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1994QJRAS..35....1M] pp. 5–6 specfies that, after Ross 428, the nearest star in the Alpha Centauri system will "permanently" be Alpha Centauri AB. Other articles, assuming the Alpha Centauri AB-C system is gravitationally bound, state the orbital period is 550,000 to more than 10⁶ years, and Proxima and Alpha would exchange places. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:30, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Timeline of the far future. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140906152109/http://www.orc.soton.ac.uk/fileadmin/downloads/5D_Data_Storage_by_Ultrafast_Laser_Nanostructuring_in_Glass.pdf to http://www.orc.soton.ac.uk/fileadmin/downloads/5D_Data_Storage_by_Ultrafast_Laser_Nanostructuring_in_Glass.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110708075519/http://www.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/eng/education/astronomy/tapping/2005/2005-08-31.html to http://www.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/eng/education/astronomy/tapping/2005/2005-08-31.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

{{sourcecheck|checked=true}

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:17, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Recurrence time for the entire Universe

In page 8 of this scientific paper they estimated the timespan until the universe resets (all particles in the same dynamical state). The Poincaré recurrence time for the universe is 10^101010101.1 years (or whatever since with this order of magnitude the usual units for time are unimportant) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.224.70.240 (talk) 20:48, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Ther's also a video from numberphile where this is in part explained: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GCf29FPM4k — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.224.70.240 (talk) 20:50, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Used to be on here, but was removed because in order for it to happen, the Universe has to remain the same size; but the universe is expanding, which means the recurrence cannot happen. Serendi^podous 20:55, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

"One can also amusingly calculate that if information is not lost, the Poincare recurrence time of an isolated black hole in a rigid nonpermeable box with stationary boundary conditions should be of the order of the exponential of the number of energy eigenstates with significant quantum components, which itself should be of the order of the exponential of the thermal entropy." The "amusingly" line and the fact that the far future doesn't contain any black holes in rigid boxes means that Page's 1994 analysis is non-physical. OTOH any more recent (but still speculative) treatments of recurrence triggered solely by vacuum fluctuations (possibly resulting in inflation) can, under some conditions, validly suggest a kind of recurrence. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 19:52, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

2 million year acidification

The quote given, "The last time acidification on this scale occurred (about 65 mya) it took more than 2 million years for corals and other marine organisms to recover; some scientists today believe, optimistically, that it could take tens of thousands of years for the ocean to regain the chemistry it had in preindustrial times", does not directly support the "2 million year" figure given. One article speculates tens of thousand or hundreds of thousands of years. My guess is that given that the current acidification has different dynamics than the 65 mya acidification, the 2-million-year figure isn't directly applicable. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 20:41, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Speculative

Can we call this a speculative type article, and then categorically topic box it with other speculative articles? -Inowen (nlfte) 09:13, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

The article is already categorized as Futurology, you'd have to explain what would be the benefits to the user of a new category. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 18:29, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Quantum fluctuations and Big Bang

If quantum fluctuations/tunnelling created the big bang, does it mean there was another universe 10¹⁰¹⁰⁵⁶ years ago? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benfxmth (talk • contribs) 09:55, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Well it would mean there was another universe 13.4 billion years ago that was 10¹⁰¹⁰⁵⁶ years old. Assuming that is how our universe came into being. Serendi^podous 10:13, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

*13.8 billion years. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 21:03, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

thoughts on making the list more readable?

This list is getting a bit hard to read. I've been pondering how to break it up. Perhaps by breaking the first section into "Future of the Earth and Solar System" and "Future of the Universe". What do you think> Serendi^podous 16:21, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

OK. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 21:04, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

"Subsequent to the present"?

In Future of the Earth, the Solar System and the Universe, I just corrected an item that said that by year 500,000, "Earth will likely to have been hit by an asteroid of roughly 1 km in diameter." Of course, Earth has already been hit by far larger asteroids, so this only makes sense if you consider this statement as "between the present and 500,000 years in the future". However, there are a number of items in this list that have the same problem.

The introduction does say "The timelines displayed here cover events from the beginning of the 11th millennium[a] to the furthest reaches of future time", but I don't think that corrects the problem.

I think the issue is that there are two types of events in this list:

1. Events which are likely to happen near an approximate date (e.g. the closest pass of red dwarf Ross 248)
2. Events which are likely to happen between the present and an approximate date (e.g. the supernova of Antares)

These are actually very different types of event: the first is based on current trends, the second is based on calculated probability. Can we somehow make it clear which type is which? Otherwise, people may misunderstand the items, e.g. that there's a 1km asteroid that is expected to hit Earth 500k years from now. -- Dan Griscom (talk) 19:09, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

There is a note attached to all those probabilistic events that says that the event could happen at any point between now and then, but that the listed date is considered the most likely. Serendi^podous 19:27, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, at least one somewhat intelligent person (me) missed that note completely, and I'll suggest it is often missed. Given the importance of the distinction, I believe we should make it clearer.

What if, instead, we changed the way each of the "probabilistic" event times are shown? Here's a mockup:

	Years from now	Event
	10,000	[Event which is predicted to occur about 10k years in the future]
	0–10,000	[Event which has a 50% predicted probability of occurring within next 10k years]
	25,000	[Event which is predicted to occur about 25k years in the future]
	36,000	[Event which is predicted to occur about 36k years in the future]
	0–50,000	[Event which has a 50% predicted probability of occurring within next 50k years]
	75,000	[Event which is predicted to occur about 75k years in the future]

I think this would be a whole lot clearer than the current display. Thoughts? -- Dan Griscom (talk) 19:51, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be simpler to just make the notes more noticeable? Serendi^podous 20:14, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Simple is good, but clearer would be better. And, what I'm proposing seems both simple and clear to me. Do you agree that it's important to differentiate between the two types of event? If so, do you think the current note (even if emphasized) clearly shows the difference between the two events?

A perhaps leading question: with ten different notes, do you think readers can keep track of what each means while they're going through the list? And, it's interesting that this note [b] is used eleven times, while the other notes are only used once apiece (except for one that's used twice), which implies that a "note" isn't the way to show this information. -- Dan Griscom (talk) 20:25, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I've done it. Serendi^podous 13:38, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Also: {|class="wikitable"

!Years!!Details |- |100–500 trillion||[Event likely to occur between 100 and 500 trillion years. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 17:25, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

The icon for physics

Why is psi used for physics? It's used for psychology. If anything, phi should be used. 195.187.108.4 (talk) 19:45, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

It's particle physics, and it represents the psi meson. Serendi^podous 21:23, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

$2.6652\cdot 10^{135}$ years and other values

Some astronomical timescales:

Years from now	Description
3 000 000	After this much time a day will be 1 minute longer than today.
4 320 000 000	Assuming the Sun's tidal forces' change isn't taken into account, a day's length would double.

Some other black hole-related timescales:

Years from now	Description
$5.06\cdot 10^{91}$	Est. time until a supermassive black hole with m=387000000 solar masses decays
$3.842\cdot 10^{97}$	Est. time until a supermassive black hole (with the density equaling that of aerogel) decays
6×1098	Est. time until a supermassive black hole (with the density equaling that of "vacuous" aerographene (i.e. counted without air)) decays
$2.6652\cdot 10^{135}$	Est. time until a supermassive black hole (with the mass of the observable universe) decays
6.97167×10136	Est. time until a supermassive black hole (with the Schwarzschild radius equaling the radius of the observable universe) decays
5.57733×10137	Est. time until a supermassive black hole (with the Schwarzschild radius equaling the diameter of the observable universe) decays
5.1415×10139	Est. time until a supermassive black hole with its density equaling the estimated energy density of the observable universe decays.
9.88766×10142	Est. time until a supermassive black hole with its density equaling $1\ {\frac {m_{{\text{e}}^{-}}}{{\text{m}}^{3}}}$ decays.
4.42068×10151	Est. time until a supermassive black hole with its density equaling $1\ {\frac {m_{\nu }}{{\text{m}}^{3}}}$ (where $m_{\nu }$ equals one possible mass of a kind of neutrino (me/1000000)) decays.
1.74876×10211	Est. time until a supermassive black hole with its surface gravity equaling $1{\frac {l_{\text{P}}}{{\text{s}}^{2}}}$ decays.
2.18693×10249	Est. time until a supermassive black hole with its surface gravity equaling that of Earth from the edge of the observable universe decays.
5.420624×10272	Est. time until a supermassive black hole with G=1 m/((distance from the edge of the observable universe/m)s)² (i.e. G equals gravity of 1 m/s² at 1 m distance, but that figure at the edge of its observable universe.)
4.55627×10581	Est. time until a supermassive black hole with surface gravity = $1{\frac {l_{\text{P}}}{{\text{s}}^{2}}}$ from 1 planck length distance from center, from the edge of its observable universe (i.e. 8.8×1026 m).

Some others related to entropy: Since the number of decisions a minute is assumed to be 2.6 per human, then assuming the universe has the same number of everything and everyone as those having ever existed, then assuming a human lifespan of 84 a, $10^{10^{10^{56}}}*10^{10^{115}}*3.5^{2.6^{12149316520000000000}}$ years. However, if we assume that:

1. We must multiply the exponent of the exponent of the 3rd number by 20 (assuming the newest human is the last in the first 5%).
2. If we assume the number of random numbers/words/... generated to have an exp. avg. of 5, and the total number of them to be 1e15, we must multiply any operand with $5^{10^{15}}$.

There the 2nd number simply disappears into the 3rd's rounding error, which in turn disappears into the 1st's. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 14:34, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Interesting figures, but they are all hypothetical, so don't belong in this article. Perhaps in the Black Hole article? Dbfirs 10:31, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

There are also things like "a black hole with 20 trillion solar masses". Alfa-ketosav (talk) 09:17, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

But that's cited. Serendi^podous 11:01, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

@Alfa-ketosav: The purpose of talk pages is to improve the articles. They are not a space for random discussion about the topic. Unless your work has any chance to lead to changes to the article (and currently it does not) please stop this. --mfb (talk) 17:45, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

1000th millennium listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 1000th millennium. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:34, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Depletion of natural resources and human extinction

Nothing is written about depletion of natural resources, such as oil and metals and what effects that would have on humankind. It is mentioned possible extinction of humankind but no link to a description of possible reasons and mechanisms why.--BIL (talk) 05:49, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't think depletion of such resources will be a problem because, by the time it happens on Earth, we will have resources from moons and asteroids. The article already contains far too much speculation (in my opinion). Dbfirs 06:22, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

The reason this page contains no references to resource depletion is because most resources will have been completely exhausted long before this list's cutoff date. Serendi^podous 13:08, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

1.26765×10¹³⁰ a

I did see this figure many times. Which cosmological event or constant is tied to it (if any)? Alfa-ketosav (talk) 16:13, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Nothing that would warrant so many significant figures. --mfb (talk) 13:01, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

And $10^{3\cdot 10^{18}}$ years? Alfa-ketosav (talk) 12:45, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Note 2

"This represents the time by which the event will most probably have happened. It may occur randomly at any time from the present."

It may have happened already, depending on the distance.

The event Grassynoel (talk) 12:59, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Unlikely for most of these events, their time estimate is much larger than their distance divided by the speed of light. Anyway, all these predictions are for time on Earth, as seen by Earth where it matters. --mfb (talk) 07:39, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Callisto

Jupiter's moon Callisto is expected to join the 1-2-4 resonance of Ganymede, Europa, and Io in a few hundred million years. Can someone please add an estimate for this ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.230.131.64 (talk) 20:44, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Do you have a citation? Serendi^podous 01:27, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I only have this http://www.astronomyweek.org.uk/?page_id=26

and this https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthread.php?162089-What-Exactly-Causes-an-Orbital-Resonance — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.230.138.173 (talk) 20:26, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Much as I love Cosmoquest's forum, forum posts aren't viable references. Not sure yet about the other one; there doesn't seem to be any indication of the authors' credentials. Serendi^podous 20:59, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

150 billion years CMB entry

I don't have the book used as reference but either the 150 billion years or 2.7 K -> 0.3 K are wrong. The temperature corresponds to a factor 10 expansion, something we'll get much quicker (35 billion years or so, rough estimate). --mfb (talk) 07:32, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Paths of Pionners and Voyagers.

Someone could work out this data into the article?

• Future stellar flybys of the Voyager and Pioneer spacecraft;
• Calculating the time it will take spacecraft to find their way to other star systems.

Thanks, Erick Soares3 (talk) 00:04, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

This is really frustrating. There seems to be a lot of contradictory information about this topic. Still, a science paper is better than a book about Concorde. Serendi^podous 19:15, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Do we need the entries describing how far the universe will have expanded?

They aren't really events; they're just arbitrarily chosen points by which the universe will have reached a certain size. Serendi^podous 21:29, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I think the 150 billion years entry is useful. After that everything not gravitationally bound is gone, so distance numbers don't matter much. --mfb (talk) 07:29, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

The main entry I initially felt of interest was added at 10^106 years, at the end of the Black Hole Era, to show that the Universe would be for all practical purposes a vacuum.

The earlier entries were subsequently added to provide some basis of support to illustrate the progression of how such a vacuum would arise -- the claim that the volume we currently observe as our Universe would be like entirely devoid of matter seemed to require a frame of reference. The times weren't completely arbitrarily chosen. The first time entry at 150 billion years was selected based on a specific citation. The intervening times were selected to produce reasonable milestones of recession velocity or size, e.g. 1 trillion light years/second, 1 trillion times the diameter of the universe/second, and then finally an expansion factor of 10^100 (which was added to further show the acceleration occurring as a result of the extreme rate of recession).

There is very little else in the article that seems to specifically relates to the enormous rates at which distant objects will recede over time (or the associated decreasing density of the Universe), and there is some math provided that derives the expansion rates and recession velocities from the Hubble parameter that seems relevant.

(There are other entries in the article that aren't really specific events)

Rsbaker0 (talk) 05:06, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Aside from the arbitrariness of the values, what really bothers me about your additions is that they come with such massive footnotes. Perhaps instead find notable enough sources to back up your claims instead of justifying them with math that borders on WP:SYN? Serendi^podous 21:27, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I thought many of the footnotes were mainly illustrative rather than strictly being supportive, but they could be mostly eliminated. We could simply leave the footnotes that aren't citations out. The observation of (for all practical purposes) zero density of the Universe at the end of the Black Hole era seemed appropriately placed in time rather than arbitrary. Here is a possible suggested revision. (1) Include the entry at 150 billion years (directly from original citation). (2) Have one intervening entry, the maximum time at which all gravitationally unbound objects will be receding from each other at some nicely rounded multiple of the speed of light (at least somewhat less arbitrary), and (3) the final entry at 10^106 years for ~zero density of Universe.

(I had thought that if anything WP:NOR might be a potential issue, but simple calculations seem permissible per WP:NOTOR) Rsbaker0 (talk) 22:06, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

"Carbonized"?

The caption for the lead image in this article says "Artist's concept of the carbonized Earth 7.9 billion years from now, after the Sun has entered the red-giant stage." What does "carbonized" mean in this context? The word isn't used anywhere else in the article. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 21:59, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Good point. I think the editor was trying to come up with a synonym for "scorched" "baked" or "blasted" that sounded sciencey. Serendi^podous 23:10, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Red giant image

I know it's the only image we have on the page, but the image of the earth with the red giant sun looks silly to me. It looks to me like there are giant chunks gouged out near the south pole for no apparent reason, rather than the usual symmetrical sphere that you expect gravity to maintain in any decent-sized planet. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 06:50, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

It's not gouged out; it's just a pool of lava. That said, Earth is about 10 thousand times larger than it should be, but that's not really a problem for me. Serendi^podous 09:40, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Glitch

On the lower part of the page, there is a glitch Another Wiki User the 2nd (talk) 14:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Specify? Serendi^podous 17:12, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Time until next big bang

I have a question about this statement:

"Because the total number of ways in which all the subatomic particles in the observable universe can be combined is 10^10^15, a number which, when multiplied by 10^10^10^56, disappears into the rounding error, this is also the time required for a quantum-tunnelled and quantum fluctuation-generated Big Bang to produce a new universe identical to our own"

What is meant by the phrase: "the number of ways in which particles can be combined"? Does this mean: the number of ways in which any universe could evolve during its lifespan from big bang to heat death? That's how I interpret it, but it could mean something else, so if anyone could elaborate on this. And what does the number 10^10^10^56 stand for?

So basically I'm asking what these two numbers stand for and how you get these numbers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:4A7C:B900:55EF:E992:AE58:1328 (talk) 19:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

There are only a finite number of ways in which the subatomic particles in the observable universe can be combined. Given a finite number of subatomic particles, and a finite number of ways in which they can interact within a finite space, there can be only a finite number of possible outcomes for any universe. Factor in the "landscape" of laws of physics allowed by string theory, and there are only a finite number of different universes that can emerge from a Big Bang. That number, incidentally, is $10^{10^{10^{7}}},$ which, despite being vast, when multiplied by $10^{10^{10^{56}}},$ is... $10^{10^{10^{56}}}.$ Serendi^podous 22:56, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

And "a universe identical to or own", does that mean a universe with exactly the same evolution as our current universe, with for example, also an earth exactly like our earth, where evolution plays out exactly the same way as it did on this earth?

Yes. Serendi^podous 07:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

"11th millennium" link

@Serendipodous: Greetings! In making this revert, you noted "The point of the link is to explain why the 11th millennium was chosen as the cutoff." I think this still needs to be changed in one way or another. First, the target List of millennia#Future does not match the text "beginning of the 11th millennium", which may mislead readers into clicking on it and disappoint them after doing so by not providing any information about the 11th millennium. That target (which is slightly wrong due to subsequent de-sectioning and merge) is a list of centuries and millenniums that only goes up to the 10th millennium. Second, the text of the target article does not actually explain why the cutoff was chosen; it's just a list of links which ends at the time this article's time frame begins. Third, I'm not sure there actually is any particular reason why the other list goes up to the 10th millennium and this one starts at the 11th. If there is, I'm not sure it needs to be explained to the reader, but if so that should probably be done in prose somewhere on this page and not on some other page. I think this article relationship would be better handled by something like "For earlier time periods, see List of centuries and millennia." or just listing it in the "See also" section. Timeline of the near future is another possible "for earlier time periods" target. -- Beland (talk) 23:38, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

There's nothing to explain. We have ten millennia AD because we have 10 millennia BC. This is everything after that. It's arbitrary and fairly pointless. Condensing the future timelines is something I'm in favour of; indeed, I have done so in the past: there used to be 10 decade articles for the 22nd century and 10 century articles for the 4th millennium. Merging them is where all those fiction lists came from in the first place. From the looks of things, if you get your way, "Timeline of the near future" will become an expanded "Third millennium", astronomical events will be moved to the events list (including, I assume, the ones listed here) and the minuscue remainder in the remaining millennium articles will be moved here. Thus, "far future" will go from being the 11th millennium to the 4th. As I said, in principle I have no problem with that, though it would be just as random and arbitrary as the current setup. Serendi^podous 15:42, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

@Serendipodous: I don't really have an opinion on where the near future ends and the far future begins. As for this link, I agree the boundary is arbitrary and no explanation is needed. If that was the justification for this link text, that means we can change it, right? How do you feel about the change proposed above? -- Beland (talk) 17:18, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

@Beland: We already have that. It's in the "timelines of the future" hatnote. Serendi^podous 13:27, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

@Serendipodous: Right, so then this link isn't needed, is it? Just making it plain text would fix the problem of it looking like it has more information about the 11th millennium but upon clicking actually turning out not to. -- Beland (talk) 17:25, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

@Beland: If you're OK with leaving the completely random cutoff point unexplained. Serendi^podous 17:48, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, as you said, it's arbitrary and there's nothing to explain. I'll make the change. -- Beland (talk) 17:56, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

@Beland: There. It's at least less arbitrary now. BTW are you planning on merging 3rd millennium and Timeline of the near future? Serendi^podous 20:41, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

A discussion is underway at Talk:Timeline_of_the_near_future#2029_Merge. -- Beland (talk) 06:21, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

4th millennium

Serendipodous (talk · contribs) merged 4th millennium and several other articles into Timeline of the far future. No explanation was given for this action. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:06, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

@LaundryPizza03: There's been a move to merge a number of future articles into larger ones, given that, once you remove the astronomical predictions, which are moved to List of future astronomical events, there is virtually no content. All the content from the merged pages is still extant. It is either on the astronomical events page or on this one. The only exception is Year 10,000 problem, because I couldn't find any sources for it. Serendi^podous 12:21, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

• Pinging Starzoner (who reverted the 4th millennium redirect conversion here) and Beland (who participated in the directly related discussions above and here) for gathering discussion on the redirect conversions in one place) and Knowledgekid87 (who also participated in the latter discussion). — MarkH₂₁^talk 05:32, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Can you give a link? Starzoner (talk) 16:12, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Positronium entry

This one: There is nothing wrong with "if protons do decay" - it's generally assumed that they do. But the formation of positronium with a giant radius can only happen in the absence of dark energy. We know there is dark energy, and there is no measurement suggesting it would go away, so this is a scenario about a world that is in conflict with measurements. I don't think we should include every toy scenario people thought about when the day was long - there are thousands of them. --mfb (talk) 21:34, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

• The source of this prediction predates the discovery of dark energy. Should we replace it with more up-to-date sources? I see at least one other prediction (about the timescale of the Big Crunch using then-available constraints on the shape of the universe) that doesn't mesh with common models of dark energy, but most other predictions from this source are solely about compact objects and events that happen within galaxies. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:24, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Latin replacing the Stop! template

What is going on with this message replacing the Stop! templates across Wikipedia?

"Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consetetur sadipscing elitr, sed diam nonumy eirmod tempor invidunt ut labore et dolore magna aliquyam erat, sed diam voluptua. At vero eos et accusam et justo duo dolores et ea rebum. Stet clita kasd gubergren, no sea takimata sanctus est Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consetetur sadipscing elitr, sed diam nonumy eirmod tempor invidunt ut labore et dolore magna aliquyam erat, sed diam voluptua."

Zonafan39 (talk) 02:45, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

The base template was merged into another with a differently-named parameter. This has been fixed now. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:08, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

"11th millennium" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 11th millennium. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 24#11th millennium until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Note: also listed are 12th-23rd millenium. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 20:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Katie Mack

Someone can see if the following book (Katie Mack (2020). The End of Everything. Scribner. p. 240. ISBN 9781982103545. OCLC 1148167457.) is a good source for this list? Thanks, Erick Soares3 (talk) 20:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

"11th millennium" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 11th millennium. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 24#11th millennium until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Note: also listed are 12th-23rd millenium. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 20:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Katie Mack

Someone can see if the following book (Katie Mack (2020). The End of Everything. Scribner. p. 240. ISBN 9781982103545. OCLC 1148167457.) is a good source for this list? Thanks, Erick Soares3 (talk) 20:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Include big crunch?

I'm a bit wary of including Big rip, but at least that is in line with the current understanding of the universe. According to every scrap of evidence we have, the Big crunch cannot happen. I think including it is misleading. Serendi^podous 23:55, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Serendipodous:! I felt the sources were good for the basic argument. Could u point out the claims that might need additional references? I could look up those and then we could remove claims that are either unreferenced or contradicted. Thanks. Vikram 09:27, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Any of the arguments to counter the observed acceleration of the universe. Serendi^podous 10:31, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

You didn't remove any unjustified claims when you reverted it. And it's not that the sources are old; it's that the acceleration of the universe's expansion is now accepted all-but universally, and your sources predate that. Serendi^podous 14:47, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

We can't rule out a future change in the behavior of dark energy, or something else new, but that's too speculative to include it here I think. The sources are clearly too old to justify that entry. --mfb (talk) 21:33, 20 February 2021 (UTC)