In his 2005 paper titled 'Lifetime of the universe1' [ https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0510003 ] Canadian physicist Don Page gives an argument that our universe must end on the timescale of 10(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); ^{60}years to avoid having more Boltzmann brains than normal observers. If not the volume of our comoving volume will be e^{1050}and by his words it will create more BBs.

My question is, isn't that a too short lifetime. The expected timescale for a single BB to fluctuate is a double exponential and his timescale for getting more BBs is only a single exponential. What is wrong with this argument?

Also in the recent few years Sean Carroll had an impressive line of defence against BBs, but his lifetime at which BBs don't occur anymore is also a double exponential numbed, much larger than Page's prediction for the doomsday. It seems that these two models are in contradiction and I can't detect where so any help would be greatly appreciated.

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**

Join Physics Forums Today!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# I Don Page - cosmological doomsday argument

Have something to add?

Draft saved
Draft deleted

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**