Talk:Timeline of the far future

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Timeline of the far future article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5: 3 months

Timeline of the far future is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured list on November 10, 2014.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
August 21, 2011	Featured list candidate	Not promoted
October 10, 2011	Peer review	Reviewed
January 15, 2012	Featured list candidate	Not promoted
August 18, 2012	Featured list candidate	Promoted
Current status: Featured list

Astronomy: Solar System Low‑importance

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Solar System task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Physics Mid‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Time High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Time, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Time on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TimeWikipedia:WikiProject TimeTemplate:WikiProject TimeTime
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Geology Mid‑importance

	Geology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Statistics Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Statistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of statistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.StatisticsWikipedia:WikiProject StatisticsTemplate:WikiProject StatisticsStatistics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Futures studies Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Futures studies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Futures studies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Futures studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Futures studiesTemplate:WikiProject Futures studiesfutures studies
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Lists High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Extinction High‑importance

	This article is a part of WikiProject Extinction, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on extinction and extinct organisms. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.ExtinctionWikipedia:WikiProject ExtinctionTemplate:WikiProject ExtinctionExtinction
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

Mark Frauenfelder (25 August 2017). "Wikipedia's mindblowing timeline of the far future". Boingboing. Retrieved 9 September 2017.
Ellie Bate (22 November 2017). "What Totally Fascinating Wikipedia Pages Have Kept You Reading All Night?". BuzzFeed.
Jordan Prosser (10 February 2025). "Want to know how the world ends? Try this Wikipedia page". The Guardian.

While you may consider this article depressing or disturbing, please remember this page is only for discussing improvements to the article. Wikipedia is not censored, but articles do have to meet certain standards.

"Future timeline of Earth" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Future timeline of Earth has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 29 § Future timeline of Earth until a consensus is reached. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 08:02, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"100th millennium" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect 100th millennium has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 29 § 100th millennium until a consensus is reached. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 08:17, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"41st millennium" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect 41st millennium has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 30 § 41st millennium until a consensus is reached. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:57, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly @LaundryPizza03:, I have no idea why you're doing this. The only rationale I can think of is to save data, and your AfD listings have already used up more data than those redirects ever did. If there were some other page for these redirects to be sent to, then yes I oculd see the point, but there isn't. The only outcome is deletion, and a Wikipedia with these redirects is identical to a Wikipedia without them. Serendi ^podous 03:02, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"14th millenium AD and beyond" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect 14th millenium AD and beyond has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 1 § 14th millenium AD and beyond until a consensus is reached. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:47, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Humans in the lead

Why does the lead mention humans? We won't be here in the far future. Polygnotus (talk) 05:27, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not only the lead, there is a section named "Humanity and human constructs" too.--3knolls (talk) 05:50, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How do objects smaller than stars (planetary mass, dust particles and even lone atoms) decay into subatomic particles? Assuming protons do not decay.

The article states that if protons do not decay, then on timescales of 10^10^76 years, all iron stars will have decay into black holes, which will disappear by Hawking Radiation. But what about smaller objects?

The reason I'm asking this question, as well as adding a [clarification needed] flag in the section, is because the article states that all matter will decay into subatomic particles, but does not explain how for smaller objects. According to citation [159] by Dyson, Freeman (1979), assuming scenario (iv) of M_B = Chandrasekhar mass (which is the scenario used for the highest estimate in this section), all objects of planetary mass or lower might last forever.

So I would like to ask for either a clarification based on other information, or a rewriting of this section to follow the [159] citation. 2A02:8071:50B0:4BA0:999B:59F8:11AA:8811 (talk) 20:10, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to the citation used, the notion that "all matter will decay" is simply incorrect if the scenario is based on the highest estimate for the time until all iron stars collapse via quantum tunnelling into neutron stars or black holes, assuming no proton decay or virtual black holes. So it is best to delete the dubious element until a better citation and explanation could be found.assuming no proton decay and virtual black holes), Lancer-lot-X (talk) 05:08, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Lancer-lot-X: You turned Beyond this point, it is almost certain that the universe will be an almost pure vacuum, with all baryonic matter having decayed into subatomic particles, gradually winding down their energy level until it reaches its final energy state, assuming it does not happen before this time. into Beyond this point, it is almost certain that the universe will be an almost pure vacuum, gradually winding down their energy level until it reaches its final energy state, assuming it does not happen before this time. So, when talking about gradually winding down their energy level, who's "they" now? Doesn't appear to make any sense anymore. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 04:27, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Falcke et al

I believe this entry should be deleted:

10^{78}

(10 octoseptuagintillion) According to Heino Falcke et al., time by which all black dwarfs will have decayed via Hawking radiation.[163]

It's true that this is what Falcke et al argue, but their paper is wrong, as I have argued here:

Dead stars don't radiate, Azimuth.

Of course all of you should make up your own minds, but briefly:

1) experts on general relativity have known since 1975 that the scenario discussed by Falcke et al will not occur: indeed, the issue is treated in at least one textbook;

2) two papers have been written rebutting Falcke's approximate calculation (while the textbook gives a treatment without any approximations);

and

3) Falcke et al go beyond their calculation saying that objects like dead stars emit Hawking radiation, which violates energy conservation, to claim that these objects will shrink and go away, thus rescuing energy conservation but violating conservation of baryon number, even though the processes they discuss conserve baryon number.

John Baez (talk) 08:48, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel remotely qualified to address this, but I've removed it for now, on the grounds that violation of the law of conservation of energy is a howler even I get. If someone wants to put it back, they can make their case here. Serendi ^podous 21:59, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the two published papers pointing out errors in the work of Falcke et al and the earlier work including textbooks that show static objects other than black holes do not emit Hawking radiation, and my own blog article, here is another popular article on their work, written by an astronomer:

Ethan Siegel, Claims that “the Universe will end sooner than expected” are false.

John Baez (talk) 19:52, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]