Hello blog readers. So I was thinking, "how can I seriously depress the lovely Daniweb visitors today?". Then it hit me: The End of All Life (EAL). I was reading an article in Physics World a few years ago about some predictions on the long term survival prospects of life, based on known physics. The most important point made regarded the expansion of the universe. A major survey of supernova explosions over the visible history of the universe (surprisingly) seemed to show that this expansion has been accelerating for a long time.

The suggested reasons for this are another story in themself. Now, consider an advanced civilisation. Their home star has run out of fuel and died and to avoid the same fate they must travel the universe in search of more energy (or they will freeze, or starve, or both). To cut off the hopeful sounding "but an advanced species would have bases near many stars", let me say this: all stars will eventually come to a cold, tragic end. GAME OVER already then? Perhaps not.

It is believed that as many as half of all stars may end up as black holes. Current physics suggests that the matter (and hence energy) of the dead star inside a black hole may escape to the surrounding space, albeit at a very slow rate inversely proportional to the star's mass. The energy actually comes from the vacuum just outside the event horizon and it's release causes an equivalent reduction in the black hole mass. This is a sneaky was to bypass the whole "nothing can escape from a black hole thing".

So our advanced species could travel vast distances and collect infinite energy from the infinite [1] number of black holes right? Wrong. The accelerating universal expansion would mean that each time they wanted to travel to another galaxy it would be further away (on average) than the last one was. A point would be reached when they would always expend more energy on the journey than they could collect from distant black holes. Now it's surely GAME OVER?

This is where the computer science comes in. The species's last chance might be to evolve into somthing that can use energy at a continually decreasing rate, while still remaining sentient. However, in 1961 Rolf Landauer of IBM argued that "any logically irreversible manipulation of information,......must be accompanied by a corresponding entropy increase in non - information bearing degrees of freedom of the information processing apparatus or it's environment". Which means, when you consider that energy is quantised, that the rate of energy usage by a computer cannot be reduced arbitrarily close to zero.

Now I'm not saying that a sentient being is just a computer with feelings. But that intelligent life must involve the processing of information, I would like to see argued away. So, looks like it's curtains then. Thanks for reading.


[1] That the number of black holes in the universe is infinite could only be true if the universe were spacially infinite. This is not proven and is still debated.

10 Years
Discussion Span
Last Post by 'Stein

My physics reading has slowed down somewhat since I finished my degree, I must admit. I think the last popular science book I dipped into was the sequel to "A Brief History...." (Hawking). I prefer magazine articles mostly as you always get really up to date stuff.


It's Science Fiction, but Baxter knows his stuff. Each book in the Manifold series uses the same characters, but the plots are different. It's not a traditional series in that sense. Each book addresses the Fermi Paradox in a different way.


The nature of black holes is still pretty much unknown to man.
There is a liable theory of how the black hole becomes one, and that theory says that the black hole has it's life spawn. Some say that it is a "bubble" in space-time continuum, and therefore the passage of time is non-existent inside black holes (plain English: time stands still inside black hole). If that is true, then how can someone define "the end of black hole' life" if there is no time passage?

Tesla has made attempts to harvest vacuum energy, ("energy of the space" as he labeled it) but he was prevented to complete his studies by his sponsor (some Energy magnate, can't remember the name). That was before the accelerating expansion of the universe was even considered to be a theory. If that energy could be harvested, then the problem of energy source would be thing of the past.

I've watched documentaries on this topic, and the forecast is this:

Galaxies will drift away from each other due to vacuum energy.
The stars will die-out, or become black holes.
All of the matter will be collected by black holes.
Leftovers will be sucked in by super-massive black hole in the galaxy center.
Eventually, the smaller black holes will be sucked in by super-massive black hole.
There won't be anything left except super-massive black holes that will eventually die at the end and all that will remain will be space dust.

This is based on today's understanding of universe.

In my opinion that is not so liable forecast, because if the super-massive black hole bursts in a form of space dust, then that space dust will become building material for new stars and all will be repeated.
Only the distance between galaxies will be much greater than they are now.

There is also a theory of infinite number of universes that are interconnected by microscopic wormholes and those universes are at different stages of life.Those wormholes could be (in theory) enlarged for a passage, and (in theory) that could be the way out of inevitable "game over" situation.

Only problem is that the gravity inside those wormholes are (in theory) so immense that any material inside it would get crushed.


Hmm, it seems that Chaky knows his stuff!

Well done, as I love this stuff as well. :mrgreen:

This topic has been dead for over six months. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.