Entropy will eventually mean that the universe will have send all its energy outwards in the form of light and other radiation, leaving the remaining matter in the universe cold and inert.

I'm trying to find ways that are as realistic as possible to beat entropy, mostly by looking at things that cannot be proven yet. Currently I have just one idea how to prevent entropy: Black holes and hawking radiation.

Black holes evaporate by hawking radiation. As far as I know this radiation happens due to quantum effects which cause particles to pop into existance. To preserve the laws of thermodynamics and not create more energy this particle pops into existence with an anti-particle to balance the energy, but they pop in so close to eachother they immediately annihilate eachother from existance.

When this happens at the edge of a Black hole one of the particle/antiparticle group can be inside the event horizon (schwarzschild radius) and the other just outside. This prevents the particles from annihilating eachother. When the particle pops in just outside the event horizon and it can leave the pull of the Black hole it flies off as hawking radiation while the antiparticle annihilates a particle inside the Black hole causing it to lose mass or "evaporate" particle by particle.

Now you cant create more energy in the universe with this method as the energy of each particle added is countered by the negative energy of the antiparticle, but perhaps you could use antiparticle entropy. Imagine an antiparticle being send out as hawking radiation. The Black hole will gain one extra particle in mass and energy and the antiparticle will fly off into the universe to annihilate another particle instead. But if the antiparticle flies off towards the edge of the universe and doesnt hit anything you've essentially "created" more energy to use without disturbing the real balance of the universe.

The premise: you find a way to manipulate how antiparticles and particles pop in (with a potential to run in an alternative of Maxwells Demon). If you can manipulate one end of the Black hole to emit more antiparticles and aim this end at the edge of the universe your Black hole will grow in mass and thus energy. The hawking radiation it outputs "normally" can be collected and converted into energy and materials and since on one end the Black hole generates more mass it would keep doing this forever. The higher your control the more energy and mass you can create, with bonus points for being able to increase/decrease the amount of pop-ins across the surface area and the ability to have another part of the Black hole emit primarily particles to be collected and used.

The amount of energy and mass created depends on the size of the Black hole. Larger Black holes have comparatively less energy creation compared to a small Black hole. A Black hole weighing several tons will already release enough energy of several thousand atomic bombs in less then a second and then be evaporated. If you can keep it the same mass but still gather the energy without losing it you can power just about anything.

Besides "manipulate quantum pop-in and facing of the particles", is there a problem with this idea?

Are there better idea's to solve entropy with a potentially plausible method? These idea's will be rated on:

  • potential for being a realistic solution.
  • potential energy created
  • potential to keep mass and energy from escaping an area to hold back entropy in a local area.
  • scale. Black holes might make a lot of energy but require some larger scale equipment to function than a bunch of tireless hamsters.
  • Ease of use. You usually dont carry a black hole in your pocket.

Edit: this question is not about surviving entropy but preventing it. The answers in the "duplucate" have only one solution mentioned that truly generates matter and energy in an attempt to stop entropy and thats by snagging suns from an alternate universe.

  • $\begingroup$ possibly the most fascinating and tantalising area of speculation about the potential of Theoretical Physics - entropy/enthalpy, how it began and may end - can we reverse the inevitable. Thing is, what's the question that you are asking exactly, seems somewhat broad, the way you've phrased it. $\endgroup$ Nov 17, 2018 at 23:10
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ "Schwartzshield radius" --> Schwarzschild. "Edge of the universe": there is no such thing. "Antiparticle entropy:" what's that? Energy and entropy are different quantities, with different dimensions. "Negative energy of the antiparticle:" what makes you believe that antiparticles have negative energy? They don't. "A particle inside the Black hole:" whatever is inside a black hole it's not made of ordinary particles. $\endgroup$
    – AlexP
    Nov 17, 2018 at 23:16
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I don't see how Hawking radiation creates energy, any more than a spring rebounding does. Mass goes into the black hole, eventually it comes back as radiation. Conservation is maintained. Admittedly I'm pretty far out of my depth though, so I could be overlooking something. $\endgroup$
    – Cadence
    Nov 17, 2018 at 23:21
  • $\begingroup$ @AlexP I'll edit the name later tnx. The universe is expanding and so has an edge as much as you can define one. It expands too fast for anything to catch up with it but its there. Entropy happens as energy leaves the Galaxies in various forms of radiation and particles and wont ever interact with anything again. Apply the same to the antiparticles released by making them move somewhere they'll not interact with the universe as it expands. $\endgroup$
    – Demigan
    Nov 17, 2018 at 23:33
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Demigan Slight clarification on the how we think the mechanism behind Hawking radiation works. The antiparticle that falls back into the black hole actually adds to its energy. Energy is lost via the minuscule amount of gravitational energy that is stolen from the black hole by the other particle that escapes. $\endgroup$
    – Skek Tek
    Nov 21, 2018 at 14:41

2 Answers 2


You want Entropy to be reversed? We can arrange that possibly, but only if you're patient.

Wait. Quite a long while.

The universe will expand. We, on earth see the universe as it is, and as it was up to 13.8 billion years ago. But that is not all there is, or will be. Entropy, reversing, we can go there, won't be a brief journey though.

10^10^26 Years in the future: Low estimate for the time until all objects exceeding the Planck mass collapse via quantum tunnelling into black holes, assuming no proton decay or virtual black holes. On this vast timescale, even ultra-stable iron stars are destroyed by quantum tunnelling events. First iron stars of sufficient mass will collapse via tunnelling into neutron stars. Subsequently, neutron stars and any remaining iron stars collapse via tunnelling into black holes. The subsequent evaporation of each resulting black hole into sub-atomic particles (a process lasting roughly 10^100 years) is on these timescales instantaneous.

10^10^50 Years Estimated time for a Boltsman brain to appear in the vacuum via a spontaneous entropy decrease.

10^10^76 Years High estimate for the time until all matter collapses into neutron stars or black holes, assuming no proton decay or virtual black holes, which then (on these timescales) instantaneously evaporate into sub-atomic particles.

10^10^120 Years High estimate for the time for the universe to reach its final energy state, even in the presence of a false vacuum.

10^10^10^56 Years. Around this vast time-frame, quantum tunnelling in any isolated patch of the vacuum could generate, via inflation, new Big Bangs giving birth to new universes.

> Because the total number of ways in which all the subatomic particles in the observable universe can be combined is 10^10^115 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, assuming that every new universe contained at least the same number of subatomic particles and obeyed laws of physics within the range predicted by string theory.

Entropy is reversed.


A second edit may appear tomorrow.


Your assumption is flawed in two ways:

  • The universe has no edge. Even if it is finite. The universe is not a box with walls or a country with borders.

  • Hawkings radiation particles don't pop out of nothing. Even the "emptiest" volume in the universe is not depleted of energy. That energy may be transformed into a particle pair with opposite charges; But the energy total of the universe remains constant. You are just shifiting energy around. If new energy came out of Hawkings radiation, Stephen Hawkings would have had to answer for crimes against thermo's second in his lifetime.

  • $\begingroup$ why is everyone having this idea that I mean a literal edge? Take this article for example: forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/05/27/… It talks about the "edge" of the universe and how it's not a a literal edge. The second point you talk about seems to be the energy of the void. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy. But as mentioned to preserve the second thermodynamic law when vacuum energy creates a particle an antiparticle is created as well to preserve the balance. $\endgroup$
    – Demigan
    Nov 18, 2018 at 9:23
  • $\begingroup$ @Demigan you assumed in the question that after one particle falls into the black hole, the other particle would mean extra energy to the universe as long as it does not collide with anything, which doesn't even make sense. Hence the discussion about void energy. As for the edge, if you don't want to be corrected about it, don't mention it. Science has no place for ironies, sarcasm etc. - whatever you say will be taken literally. $\endgroup$ Nov 18, 2018 at 13:26
  • $\begingroup$ I wasn't clear then. I meant that if you have one particle fall into the black hole and the antiparticle flies off the energy balance of the universe remains intact. But you have more energy locally in the black hole as there's now one more particle with mass and energy inside. Because entropy is about energy "leaving" the universe one way or another until it has expanded so far that there's not enough energy for anything to happen anymore the ability to "create" a new particle locally without violating Thermodynamics would allow you to prevent entropy if you do it on a large scale. $\endgroup$
    – Demigan
    Nov 18, 2018 at 21:48
  • $\begingroup$ @demigan the thing is, that energy didn't come from nowhere. Judt like the entropy of Earth diminishes a little bit at the expense of a larger increase at the entropy of the sun. $\endgroup$ Nov 18, 2018 at 23:31

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .