What is the longest lasting non-living thing in the universe?

  • Thread starter Thread starter apathyinlife
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the question of what constitutes the longest lasting non-living thing in the universe, exploring various perspectives on longevity in relation to stars, black holes, and even comparisons to living organisms. The scope includes theoretical considerations and speculative reasoning.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that red dwarf stars could last for 100 trillion years, significantly longer than the current age of the universe.
  • Another participant questions whether black holes might outlast stars, noting that black holes can evaporate over extremely long timescales, with smaller black holes potentially lasting up to 10^67 years.
  • Some participants mention living organisms, specifically bristlecone pines, as examples of long-lived entities, with one recounting a story about the destruction of the oldest known living organism.
  • There is a correction regarding the evaporation times of black holes, with a clarification that larger black holes have longer evaporation times compared to smaller ones.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on whether stars or black holes represent the longest lasting non-living entities, with ongoing debate about the specifics of black hole evaporation times and the relevance of living organisms in this context. No consensus is reached.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved aspects regarding the definitions of "non-living" and the assumptions made about the conditions under which stars and black holes exist and evolve.

apathyinlife
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Good morning, afternoon or evening to whomever may be reading. My name is Garrick Betts. I have a question that I feel may pertain to this area of physics. I must apologize now because this whole spiel will be a grammatical nightmare. Anyway... I have come to the recent acceptance/ agony of acceptance of my mortality. I feel when I pass I will experience no afterlife because my brain will die. There will be no further intake or ability to take in new information. With this recent thought pattern many random thoughts have been arising. The thoughts that I have had tonight have brought me here they are as follows: the human body is weak; martial arts, in a combat sense, would be easy with patience and anything else that lives is equally as weak. (I'm thinking oh well a tree seems pretty sturdy but no it is not it will die as well.) After these thoughts I was trying to think of what would be an apt image to focus on to develop strength, not super human, just something to aid the building of muscle, this coming from my time as a wiccan. So, I thought of a house, cool, non-living, but... made from previously alive things. The house will, in time erode. So, the question that I am posing to the scientific masses is this: what is the longest lasting, non-living, thing in the universe?
Again, I do apologize for how jumbled this message is and my thoughts still aren't fully formed this was a spur of the moment had-to-know kind of thing. If you can make sense of this and can in any way empathize with me you are truly intelligent. Thank-you and have a good morning, afternoon or evening.
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
Red dwarf stars will live on for 100 trillion years - that's almost 10,000 times longer than the universe has been around to-date.

If a red dwarf's lifespan were 80 years, that means the oldest one today would be an infantile 2 days old.
 
Wouldn't a black hole last longer than a star? Unless the star were guaranteed to never travel near a black hole, which I don't think you could do.

Thinking of your red dwarf star being sucked into a black hole would probably be a strange source of motivation and strength, though.

I'd go with living things. Bristlecone pines live a long time. (In fact, there's a sad story of a researcher cutting down a bristlecone pine only to realize he'd just killed the oldest known living organism on Earth.)
 
BobG said:
Wouldn't a black hole last longer than a star?

They evaporate. Big ones in as little as 3 billion years. Small ones in as much as 10^67 years. (OK, that's longer than 100 trillion)
BobG said:
I'd go with living things. Bristlecone pines live a long time. (In fact, there's a sad story of a researcher cutting down a bristlecone pine only to realize he'd just killed the oldest known living organism on Earth.)

Well, I assume he came to the Astro forum for a reason...
 
DaveC426913 said:
They evaporate. Big ones in as little as 3 billion years. Small ones in as much as 10^67 years. (OK, that's longer than 100 trillion)

Sorry? I think you've swapped big and small here.
 
Nabeshin said:
Sorry? I think you've swapped big and small here.
Sorry, you are right. I read it wrong.

For a black hole of one solar mass ... we get an evaporation time of 2.098 × 10^67 years...

But for a black hole of 10^11 kg, the evaporation time is 2.667 billion years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation#Black_hole_evaporation
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
10K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
9K
Replies
35
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
16
Views
3K