Skip to content
Back to the question

Evidence record

How will the universe end?

Every sentence on the exploration belongs to at least one claim below. Each says what kind of statement it is, what it rests on, what the evidence does not establish, and how far it was checked. Nothing here is a score, and none of it is a verdict on a belief or a theory.

Last checked 24 September 2026.

  • A judgement, not a fact: 11
  • Source checked: 38
  • Presented as open: 3

If something here is wrong, misquoted, out of date or unfair, write to support@unknownoceans.com and give the claim number, which does not change.

What the question takes for granted

A question about the far future that is answered, so far as it can be, by present measurements and by models extrapolated a very long way. Which ending applies turns mainly on whether dark energy is constant, which is contested now; proton decay and vacuum stability are separate open questions in particle physics.

  • The universe is expanding, and the expansion is accelerating now

    Established

    Found with supernovae in 1998 and 1999 and supported by the microwave background and baryon acoustic oscillations since. The acceleration is the observation; dark energy is the name for its cause.

  • The universe will end

    Contested

    Under a cosmological constant nothing abruptly ends: expansion continues forever and the universe cools and runs down. "End" there means the end of stars, structure and the ability to do work. Other endings (a contraction, a rip, a change of vacuum) depend on physics not yet measured.

  • Present physics can be extrapolated across trillions of years and beyond

    Open

    Every timescale on the page assumes the laws of physics stay as they are. The long-term survey the page cites says so of itself, and the vacuum calculation assumes no physics beyond the Standard Model.

How the question is labelled

Claim: The long cold

Kind
Framing. Signposting. It asserts nothing a source could check.

Claim: The end

Kind
Framing. Signposting. It asserts nothing a source could check.

The question

Claim: Much of the answer turns on one quantity,

Kind
This page’s reading. A judgement the page makes from the evidence. Others read it differently.
Review
A judgement, not a fact. Reviewed for whether it is fairly put and follows from the checked claims. No source can confirm it.

The quantity is dark energy, summarised by its equation of state. Proton decay and the stability of the vacuum, which the page also covers, do not turn on it.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “The answer depends almost entirely on one quantity,” "Almost entirely" overstated it: two of the page’s own sections, proton decay and a change of vacuum, describe endings that do not depend on dark energy.

Claim 3 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: and that quantity has just started to look less constant than it did.

Kind
Observation. Something measured or seen, as the named source reports it.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

What this does not establish

"Look less constant" is a statistical preference, not a detection, and it depends on which supernova sample is combined with the survey data.

Later work looked for

arXiv and Crossref, 2025 on, "DESI dynamical dark energy supernova": recalibrated supernova samples (DES-Dovekie 2025, Union3.1 2026) lower the top of the range; the passage below now reports it.

Claim 4 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Expansion is accelerating, which was discovered in 1998 and was not expected.

Kind
Observation. Something measured or seen, as the named source reports it.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

The High-Z team published in 1998 and the Supernova Cosmology Project in 1999; each describes the other’s result as independent work reaching the same conclusion.

Later work looked for

DESI DR2 (2025) and Planck 2018 both take present acceleration as given; nothing found that reverses it.

Claim 5 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: If the cause is a constant, the universe thins and cools forever.

Kind
What a model says. What a theory or model predicts or describes, which is not the same as what has been observed.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

  • Supports

    Phantom Energy: Dark Energy with w < -1 Causes a Cosmic Doomsdayabstract

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Theory · Model

    The source reads: Cosmologists have long wondered whether the Universe will ... re-collapse and end with a Big Crunch, or expand forever, becoming increasingly cold and empty.

  • Supports

    Rapidly descending dark energy and the end of cosmic expansionintroduction

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Theory · Model

    The source reads: dark energy takes the form of a positive cosmological constant, in which case the current period of accelerated expansion will endure indefinitely into the future

What this does not establish

A prediction of the standard model of cosmology, conditional on dark energy being exactly constant and on nothing else intervening, such as a change of vacuum.

Claim 6 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: If it is a field that changes, several other endings become available,

Kind
What a model says. What a theory or model predicts or describes, which is not the same as what has been observed.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

What this does not establish

Each ending belongs to a particular kind of field: a contraction needs a potential that falls below zero, a rip needs dark energy that strengthens. Neither is established.

Claim 7 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: and recent survey data mildly prefer a changing one.

Kind
Observation. Something measured or seen, as the named source reports it.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

What this does not establish

A preference of about three standard deviations, from combinations of datasets; the passage below gives the figures and the dispute.

Later work looked for

arXiv, 2025 on, "DESI DR2 supernova recalibration": figures now 3.2 to 3.4 sigma across samples; "mildly" stands.

Claim 8 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: For most of the twentieth century the question was whether gravity would eventually pull everything back together.

Kind
Historical claim. A statement about the past that historical evidence can test.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

Hubble’s discovery dates from 1929; the question as framed here held until the supernova results of 1998 and 1999.

  • Supports

    Phantom Energy: Dark Energy with w < -1 Causes a Cosmic Doomsdayabstract and first paragraph

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Review of the field

    The source reads: Cosmologists have long wondered whether the Universe will ... re-collapse and end with a Big Crunch, or expand forever ... Hubble’s discovery of the cosmological expansion ... has long sparked speculation on the ultimate fate of the Universe

  • Supports

    Measurements of Omega and Lambda from 42 High-Redshift Supernovaefigure 7 caption

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026

    The source reads: the expansion of the universe will eventually come to a halt and recollapse

What this does not establish

The sources describe recollapse as one of two long-debated fates, not as the only question asked.

Claim 9 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: The answer turned out to be that something is pushing instead.

Kind
Observation. Something measured or seen, as the named source reports it.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

"Pushing" is the page’s image for an accelerating expansion.

Later work looked for

See claim 5: later measurements keep the acceleration.

Claim 10 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: That something has a name, dark energy, which is a label for an observation rather than an explanation of it.

Kind
About a word. What a word in the original language means, or how it is translated.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

  • Supports

    Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameterssection 8, Conclusions

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Measurement

    The source reads: the main ingredients of ΛCDM, namely inflation, dark energy, and dark matter are not understood at any fundamental level

  • Supports

    Phantom Energy: Dark Energy with w < -1 Causes a Cosmic Doomsdayfirst page

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026

    The source reads: it is really only a placeholder until a better understanding of this negative pressure arises

Claim 11 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

What is measured

Claim: What is measured

Kind
Framing. Signposting. It asserts nothing a source could check.

The expansion is speeding up

Claim: The expansion is speeding up

Kind
Observation. Something measured or seen, as the named source reports it.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

Later work looked for

See claim 5.

Claim 13 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Two independent teams, measuring the brightness of exploding stars of a standard kind at great distances, found in 1998 and 1999 that those explosions were fainter than a decelerating universe predicted.

Kind
Observation. Something measured or seen, as the named source reports it.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

  • Supports

    Observational Evidence from Supernovae for an Accelerating Universe and a Cosmological Constantabstract; section 5

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Astronomical observation · Measurement

    The source reads: High-redshift SNe Ia are observed to be dimmer than expected in an empty Universe (i.e., Ω M = 0 ) with no cosmological constant.

  • Supports

    Measurements of Omega and Lambda from 42 High-Redshift Supernovaesection on results

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Astronomical observation · Measurement

    The source reads: A flat, Ω Λ = 0 cosmology is a quite poor fit to the data. The (Ω M, Ω Λ ) = (1, 0) line on Figure 2(b) shows that 38 out of 42 high-redshift supernovae are fainter than predicted for this model.

  • Supports

    Measurements of Omega and Lambda from 42 High-Redshift Supernovaeintroduction

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026

    The source reads: Recent independent work of Riess et al. (1998), based on 10 high-redshift supernovae added to the Garnavich et al. set, reached the same conclusion.

What this does not establish

Sixteen high-redshift supernovae in one sample and forty-two in the other. "Of a standard kind" means type Ia supernovae standardised by the shape of their light curves.

Later work looked for

Planck 2018 section 5.2 and DESI DR2 (2025): the acceleration stands with far larger samples; nothing found that changes it.

Claim 14 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: The reading that survived is that the expansion slowed at first and has been accelerating for the more recent part of cosmic history.

Kind
Observation. Something measured or seen, as the named source reports it.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

  • Supports

    Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parametersfigure 16 caption

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Astronomical observation · Measurement

    The source reads: The grey bands show the 68 % and 95 % confidence ranges allowed by Planck TT,TE,EE+lowE+lensing in the base- ΛCDM model, clearly showing the onset of acceleration around z = 0.6.

What this does not establish

The onset is read through the standard model; its date in years depends on that model.

Later work looked for

DESI DR2 (2025) still finds acceleration today, with dark energy possibly weakening; nothing that moves the onset out of the recent part of cosmic history.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “The reading that survived is that the expansion has been accelerating for several billion years.” No cited source gives the onset in billions of years; Planck gives it as a redshift of about 0.6 in the standard model, so the sentence says what that means without the conversion.

Claim 15 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: It has since been confirmed by the microwave background and by the imprint of sound waves from the early universe on the distribution of galaxies, which are entirely different measurements.

Kind
Observation. Something measured or seen, as the named source reports it.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

  • Supports

    Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameterssection 5.2

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Astronomical observation · Measurement

    The source reads: For ΛCDM models, however, SNe data have little statis-tical power compared to Planck and BAO

  • Supports

    Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parametersabstract

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Astronomical observation · Measurement

    The source reads: Assuming the base- ΛCDM cosmology, the inferred (model-dependent) late-Universe parameters are: Hubble constant H₀ = (67.4±0.5) km s⁻¹ Mpc⁻¹; matter density parameter Ωₘ = 0.315±0.007

    Notation restored: Subscripts and superscripts restored as the arXiv PDF (1807.06209v4) typesets them, read from glyph positions 2026-09-24; the abstract on arXiv gives H_0 and Ω_m the same way. The text as extracted reads: Assuming the base- ΛCDM cosmology, the inferred (model-dependent) late-Universe parameters are: Hubble constant H0 = (67.4±0.5) km s−1Mpc−1; matter density parameterΩm = 0.315±0.007

  • Supports

    DESI DR2 Results II: Measurements of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations and Cosmological Constraintsabstract

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Astronomical observation · Measurement

    The source reads: their distance-redshift relationship matches those from recent compilations of supernovae (SNe) over the same redshift range

What this does not establish

The microwave background gives dark energy through a model: a flat universe with matter at about 31 per cent leaves the rest to dark energy. The measurements are independent of supernovae, not of the model.

Later work looked for

DESI DR2 (2025) confirms the supernova distance relation with baryon acoustic oscillations; nothing that changes it.

Claim 16 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Nothing ends soon

Claim: Nothing ends soon

Kind
This page’s reading. A judgement the page makes from the evidence. Others read it differently.
Review
A judgement, not a fact. Reviewed for whether it is fairly put and follows from the checked claims. No source can confirm it.

Follows from the timescales in this section and in claims 48 and 58; the nearest ending the page reports, a contraction on one model, is billions of years away.

Claim 17 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Star formation runs down as galaxies exhaust their gas.

Kind
What a model says. What a theory or model predicts or describes, which is not the same as what has been observed.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

  • Supports

    A Dying Universe: the Long Term Fate and Evolution of Astrophysical Objectsabstract; section II.D, Continued Star Formation in the Galaxy

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Theory · Review of the field

    The source reads: At times exceeding ∼1–10 trillion years, the supply of interstellar gas will be exhausted ... Thus, by the cosmological decade η ≈ 14, essentially all normal star formation in galaxies will h ave ceased.

What this does not establish

Star formation continues afterwards at a very low level through collisions of brown dwarfs, on the same survey’s account.

Later work looked for

Crossref, 2000 on, "long term fate universe star formation": nothing found that revises the estimate.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “Star formation runs down as galaxies exhaust the gas they can cool.” The survey describes the gas supply running out; "they can cool" was not in it.

Claim 18 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Adams and Laughlin’s survey of the long term puts that beyond one to ten trillion years, with the smallest hydrogen-burning stars still going at ten trillion, and significant numbers of stars only out to about a hundred trillion.

Kind
What a model says. What a theory or model predicts or describes, which is not the same as what has been observed.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

The survey counts time in "cosmological decades": η = 13 is ten trillion years, η = 14 a hundred trillion.

What this does not establish

Model estimates. The abstract gives one to ten trillion years for the gas; the detailed estimate in the body runs from one to a hundred trillion. The survey was written before the acceleration was found, which does not change stellar timescales.

Later work looked for

Crossref, 2000 on, "long term fate universe star formation": nothing found that revises the timescales.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “The standard survey of the long term puts that at one to ten trillion years, with the smallest hydrogen-burning stars still going at ten trillion, and stars of any kind present only out to about a hundred trillion.” The survey says the gas is exhausted "at times exceeding" one to ten trillion years, and that significant numbers of stars exist only to that point, while new stars still form later from brown dwarf collisions. "Standard" was an unsourced judgement; the survey is now named.

Claim 19 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Every ending under discussion is remote enough that the difference between them is a difference in what kind of universe this is, not in what anyone should do about it.

Kind
This page’s reading. A judgement the page makes from the evidence. Others read it differently.
Review
A judgement, not a fact. Reviewed for whether it is fairly put and follows from the checked claims. No source can confirm it.

The page’s own judgement, following from the timescales it reports: billions of years at the nearest.

Claim 20 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

What it depends on

Claim: What it depends on

Kind
Framing. Signposting. It asserts nothing a source could check.

Whether dark energy is constant

Claim: Whether dark energy is constant

Kind
Open question. Something the page says is not known.
Review
Presented as open. The page says this is unresolved, and the review found that it is.

Claim 22 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: The simplest description is a cosmological constant: a fixed energy per unit volume that does not dilute as space expands.

Kind
What a model says. What a theory or model predicts or describes, which is not the same as what has been observed.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

What this does not establish

Simplest in form, not in explanation: the value of the constant has no accepted theoretical basis.

Claim 23 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: That has fitted the data well since 1998.

Kind
Observation. Something measured or seen, as the named source reports it.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

  • Supports

    Observational Evidence from Supernovae for an Accelerating Universe and a Cosmological Constantsection 5

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Astronomical observation · Measurement

    The source reads: The ultimate fate of the Universe is sealed by a positive cosmological constant.

  • Supports

    Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parametersabstract

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Astronomical observation · Measurement

    The source reads: the dark-energy equation of state parameter is measured to be w0 =−1.03± 0.03, consistent with a cosmological constant.

  • Supports

    DESI DR2 Results II: Measurements of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations and Cosmological Constraintsabstract

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Astronomical observation · Measurement

    The source reads: The results are well described by a flat ΛCDM model, but the parameters preferred by BAO are in mild, 2.3σ tension with those determined from the cosmic microwave background (CMB)

    Notation restored: A space inside 2.3σ removed, checked against the arXiv PDF (2503.14738v3) extracted with pdftotext, read 2026-09-24. The text as extracted reads: The results are well described by a flat ΛCDM model, but the parameters preferred by BAO are in mild, 2 .3σ tension with those determined from the cosmic microwave background (CMB)

What this does not establish

The next paragraph reports the strain: the survey data fit a constant on their own but sit in mild tension with the microwave background under it.

Later work looked for

DESI DR2 (2025) and the supernova recalibrations of 2025 and 2026, reported on the page.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “That fits the data well and has fitted them for twenty-five years.” Twenty-five years was already out of date (1998 to 2026 is twenty-eight), and "fits" in the present tense ran against the next paragraph, where the fit is under strain.

Claim 24 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: In 2024 and again in 2025, baryon acoustic oscillation measurements from a large spectroscopic survey, combined with the microwave background and supernovae, preferred a dark energy whose strength changes with time, at a significance the collaboration reported in 2025 as 2.8 to 4.2 standard deviations depending on the supernova sample.

Kind
Observation. Something measured or seen, as the named source reports it.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

  • Supports

    DESI DR2 Results II: Measurements of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations and Cosmological Constraintsabstract

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Astronomical observation · Measurement

    The source reads: When also including SNe, the preference for a dynamical dark energy model over ΛCDM ranges from 2.8− 4.2σ depending on which SNe sample is used.

  • Supports

    DESI DR2 Results II: Measurements of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations and Cosmological Constraintssection on w0waCDM results

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Astronomical observation · Measurement

    The source reads: These significances have all increased compared to the values reported in [38] based on the DESI DR1 BAO results.

  • Context

    Evolving dark energy or supernovae systematics?abstract (arXiv submission of August 2024, v3)

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026

    The source reads: Recent results from the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI) collaboration have been interpreted as evidence for evolving dark energy.

  • Qualifies

    Evolving dark energy or supernovae systematics?abstract

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026

    The source reads: The strength of the evidence for evolving dark energy ranges from ∼ 3.9σ for the Dark Energy 5 year (DES5Y) SN sample to ∼ 2.5σ for the Pantheon+ sample.

    The 2024 figures, from the first data release, were lower: about 2.5 to 3.9 standard deviations. The range of 2.8 to 4.2 is the 2025 release’s.

What this does not establish

The significance is the collaboration’s own, and depends on the supernova sample; corrections since are in the next paragraph.

Later work looked for

arXiv and Crossref, 2025 on, "DESI DR2 supernova recalibration" and "evolving dark energy supernovae systematics": DES-Dovekie (2025) and Union3.1 (2026) lower the top of the range; a paragraph reporting them was added.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “In 2024 and again in 2025, baryon acoustic oscillation measurements from a large spectroscopic survey, combined with the microwave background and supernovae, preferred a dark energy whose strength changes with time, at a significance the collaboration reported as 2.8 to 4.2 standard deviations depending on the supernova sample.” The range of 2.8 to 4.2 is the 2025 release’s; the 2024 release reported lower figures, about 2.5 to 3.9, and the 2025 paper says its significances all increased. The sentence read as though both years gave the same range.

Claim 25 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Corrections to the supernova samples since have narrowed that range: a 2026 reanalysis puts all three at 3.2 to 3.4, and the team behind the sample that gave 4.2 now reports 3.2, which it calls a weak preference.

Kind
Observation. Something measured or seen, as the named source reports it.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

  • Supports

    Union3.1: Reducing Systematics in Supernova Cosmology with Self-consistent Measurements of Host Galaxy Properties for 2000 Type Ia Supernovaecaption of the combined-probe figure; conclusions

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Astronomical observation · Measurement

    The source reads: The improved consistency among SN analyses is readily apparent; the range of evidence for w₀wₐ tightened from 2.8–4.2σ to just 3.2–3.4σ. ... with each of the three combinations shifting from the originally reported values in DESI-DR2 of (3.8σ, 2.8σ and 4.2σ) to (3.4σ, 3.2σ, and 3.4σ)

    Notation restored: Subscripts restored from the authors’ LaTeX source of v2 on arXiv (2601.19424v2), which writes w with subscripts 0 and a, read 2026-09-24. The text as extracted reads: The improved consistency among SN analyses is readily apparent; the range of evidence for w0 wa tightened from 2.8–4.2σ to just 3.2–3.4σ. ... with each of the three combinations shifting from the originally reported values in DESI-DR2 of (3.8σ, 2.8σ and 4.2σ) to (3.4σ, 3.2σ, and 3.4σ)

  • Supports

    The Dark Energy Survey Supernova Program: A Reanalysis Of Cosmology Results And Evidence For Evolving Dark Energy With An Updated Type Ia Supernova Calibrationabstract; section on model comparison

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Astronomical observation · Measurement

    The source reads: Our results hold a significance of 3.2σ, reduced from 4.2σ for DES-SN5YR, to reject the null hypothesis that the data are compatible with the cosmological constant. ... our updated data exhibits only a weak preference for evolving dark energy.

    Notation restored: The PDF’s mathematical italic sigma set as σ, as the authors’ arXiv abstract page (2511.07517v3) renders it, read 2026-09-24. The text as extracted reads: Our results hold a significance of 3.2𝜎, reduced from 4.2𝜎 for DES-SN5YR, to reject the null hypothesis that the data are compatible with the cosmological constant. ... our updated data exhibits only a weak preference for evolving dark energy.

What this does not establish

The 2026 reanalysis is a preprint by the Union3.1 team; its 3.4 for the recalibrated DES sample differs from the DES team’s own 3.2 because the combinations differ. The DES team’s “weak” is its reading of the Bayesian odds, about five to one, beside the frequentist 3.2.

Later work looked for

arXiv, 2025 on, "DESI DR2 supernova recalibration" and "Bayesian evidence evolving dark energy": Bayesian reanalyses (2025, 2026) find the preference weaker still with the recalibrated sample; not added, as the page gives the frequentist figures throughout.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “” The 4.2 at the top of the range came from a supernova sample that its own team recalibrated in November 2025, bringing it to 3.2. The page reported a superseded figure as the current one.

Claim 26 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Whether the signal is dark energy at all is disputed: George Efstathiou argued that a small offset between supernova samples could bring the most discrepant one into line with a constant.

Kind
What scholars argue. A report of what specialists argue, or where they disagree.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

What this does not establish

The argument was made about the 2024 results. The DES team traced the offset to differences in how the two samples were analysed, and its own 2025 recalibration lowered the figure without removing the preference.

Other readings

The DESI collaboration reads the combined data as a challenge to a constant unless some dataset carries an unknown systematic error.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “” A contested result was reported with only the collaboration’s side; the published rival reading is now attributed.

Claim 27 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: That is interesting rather than settled.

Kind
This page’s reading. A judgement the page makes from the evidence. Others read it differently.
Review
A judgement, not a fact. Reviewed for whether it is fairly put and follows from the checked claims. No source can confirm it.

Follows from claims 25 to 27: a preference of about three standard deviations, disputed.

Claim 28 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: It is also the single measurement that most changes the answer to this question.

Kind
This page’s reading. A judgement the page makes from the evidence. Others read it differently.
Review
A judgement, not a fact. Reviewed for whether it is fairly put and follows from the checked claims. No source can confirm it.

The page’s judgement: whether dark energy is constant decides between the endings in the comparison below.

Claim 29 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: What follows from what

Kind
Framing. Signposting. It asserts nothing a source could check.

Claim: A constant

Kind
Framing. Signposting. It asserts nothing a source could check.

Claim: Expansion accelerates forever

Kind
What a model says. What a theory or model predicts or describes, which is not the same as what has been observed.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

  • Supports

    Rapidly descending dark energy and the end of cosmic expansionintroduction

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Theory · Model

    The source reads: dark energy takes the form of a positive cosmological constant, in which case the current period of accelerated expansion will endure indefinitely into the future

What this does not establish

Conditional on the constant and on the vacuum staying as it is.

Claim 32 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Galaxies beyond the local group pass out of reach and the sky empties

Kind
What a model says. What a theory or model predicts or describes, which is not the same as what has been observed.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

  • Supports

    Phantom Energy: Dark Energy with w < -1 Causes a Cosmic Doomsdaysecond page

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Theory · Model

    The source reads: As time progresses, galaxies disappear beyond the horizon, and the Universe becomes increasingly dark. Still, structures that are currently gravitationally bound, such as the Milky Way and perhaps the Local Group, remain unaffected.

What this does not establish

The source says the Local Group "perhaps" stays bound.

Claim 33 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Everything cools and runs down until no work can be done: the heat death

Kind
What a model says. What a theory or model predicts or describes, which is not the same as what has been observed.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

What this does not establish

Adams and Laughlin find energy still being produced out to about 10 to the 100 years, and treat heat death as a possibility after that rather than a certainty.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “Matter cools towards a uniform, featureless state: the heat death” The cited survey says an expanding universe never reaches uniform equilibrium; what it calls cosmological heat death is a state in which no work can be done.

Claim 34 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: A field that weakens

Kind
Framing. Signposting. It asserts nothing a source could check.

Claim: Acceleration could slow, stop, or reverse

Kind
What a model says. What a theory or model predicts or describes, which is not the same as what has been observed.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

What this does not establish

For a field whose potential falls; which potential, if any, describes dark energy is not known.

Claim 36 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Expansion could stop and turn to contraction, on one published model within a few billion years

Kind
What a model says. What a theory or model predicts or describes, which is not the same as what has been observed.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

  • Supports

    Rapidly descending dark energy and the end of cosmic expansionabstract; section on the worked example

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Theory · Model

    The source reads: The currently observed accelerated expansion will cease; soon thereafter, expansion will come to end altogether; and the universe will pass into a phase of slow contraction. ... tcon−t0=0.27H0−1 –less than a Hubble time and on the order of billions of years

    The paper takes a Hubble time as about 14 billion years, so 0.27 of one is about 3.8 billion years.

What this does not establish

One model, fitted to current data at the 2 sigma level. Its authors say the end of acceleration could come within 100 million years for steeper potentials, and that nothing measured today could yet detect it.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “A collapse far in the future becomes possible again” The published model of this ending puts contraction less than a Hubble time away, "on the order of billions of years", not far in the future, and describes a slow contraction rather than a collapse.

Claim 37 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Which of these depends on details nothing currently measures

Kind
Open question. Something the page says is not known.
Review
Presented as open. The page says this is unresolved, and the review found that it is.

  • Supports

    Rapidly descending dark energy and the end of cosmic expansionsignificance statement

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026

    The source reads: The conclusions are that the transition could be surprisingly soon, maybe less than 100 million y from now, and yet, for reasons described in the main text, it is not yet detectable today.

Claim 38 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Whether matter itself is stable

Claim: Whether matter itself is stable

Kind
Open question. Something the page says is not known.
Review
Presented as open. The page says this is unresolved, and the review found that it is.

Claim 39 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Some theories that unify the forces predict that protons decay, on timescales enormously longer than the present age of the universe.

Kind
What a model says. What a theory or model predicts or describes, which is not the same as what has been observed.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

What this does not establish

Predictions vary widely between theories; the only firm numbers are lower limits from experiment, around 10 to the 34 years against an age of about 10 to the 10.

Claim 40 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: If they do, ordinary matter eventually evaporates,

Kind
What a model says. What a theory or model predicts or describes, which is not the same as what has been observed.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

What this does not establish

Conditional on proton decay, which has not been observed.

Claim 41 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: by a process that does not depend on dark energy.

Kind
This page’s reading. A judgement the page makes from the evidence. Others read it differently.
Review
A judgement, not a fact. Reviewed for whether it is fairly put and follows from the checked claims. No source can confirm it.

Proton decay is particle physics; the rate the theories predict does not involve the expansion. A rip or a change of vacuum, if either came first, would end matter sooner.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “regardless of what space is doing.” "Regardless" was too strong: the page’s own rip and vacuum sections describe endings that would come first if they happened.

Claim 42 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: It has been looked for.

Kind
Historical claim. A statement about the past that historical evidence can test.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

Claim 43 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: A detector in Japan watched a large volume of water from 1996 to 2018 and saw no candidate events in the decay channel many of those theories favour, which puts the partial lifetime for that channel above 2.4 times 10 to the 34 years, at 90 per cent confidence.

Kind
Observation. Something measured or seen, as the named source reports it.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

Super-Kamiokande, at Kamioka; a fiducial volume of 22.5 to 27.2 kilotonnes of water.

  • Supports

    Search for proton decay via p to e+ pi0 and p to mu+ pi0 with an enlarged fiducial volume in Super-Kamiokande I-IVabstract

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Physical systems · Measurement

    The source reads: We have searched for proton decay via p → e⁺π⁰ and p → µ⁺π⁰ modes with the enlarged fiducial volume data of Super-Kamiokande from April 1996 to May 2018, which corresponds to 450 kton·years exposure.

    Notation restored: Superscripts restored from the authors’ LaTeX of the abstract on arXiv (2010.16098), read 2026-09-24. The text as extracted reads: We have searched for proton decay via p → e+π0 and p → µ+π0 modes with the enlarged fiducial volume data of Super-Kamiokande from April 1996 to May 2018, which corresponds to 450 kton·years exposure.

  • Supports

    Search for proton decay via p to e+ pi0 and p to mu+ pi0 with an enlarged fiducial volume in Super-Kamiokande I-IVabstract

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Physical systems · Measurement

    The source reads: No candidates have been found for p → e⁺π⁰ ... We set lower limits on the partial lifetime for each of these modes: τ/B (p → e⁺π⁰) > 2.4 × 10³⁴ years

    Notation restored: Superscripts restored from the authors’ LaTeX of the abstract on arXiv (2010.16098), which gives the exponent as 34, read 2026-09-24. The text as extracted reads: No candidates have been found for p→ e+π0 ... We set lower limits on the partial lifetime for each of these modes: τ/B (p→ e+π0)> 2.4× 1034 years

  • Supports

    Search for proton decay via p to e+ pi0 and p to mu+ pi0 with an enlarged fiducial volume in Super-Kamiokande I-IVsection I, Introduction; section II

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026

    The source reads: While the p → e⁺π⁰ mode is favored by many GUT models ... Super-Kamiokande (SK) is located about 1,000 m (2,700 meters water equivalent) under Mt. Ikenoyama in, Gifu Prefecture, Japan. ... filled with 50 kton of ultrapure water

    Notation restored: Superscripts restored as the authors write the same decay mode in the LaTeX of their arXiv abstract (2010.16098), read 2026-09-24. The text as extracted reads: While the p→ e+π0 mode is favored by many GUT models ... Super-Kamiokande (SK) is located about 1,000 m (2,700 meters water equivalent) under Mt. Ikenoyama in, Gifu Prefecture, Japan. ... filled with 50 kton of ultrapure water

  • Supports

    Grand Unified Theories (Review of Particle Physics, chapter 92)section 92.6

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · The cited passage was read, 24 September 2026 · Reference work

    The source reads: comes from Super-Kamiokande. With 450 kton-years of data they find

    The bound itself is left out of this excerpt because the PDF text runs words together and loses its superscripts; the Super-Kamiokande abstract above carries it.

Later work looked for

Crossref, 2021 on, "Super-Kamiokande proton decay": no newer limit in this channel; the Particle Data Group review of 2025 still quotes 2.4 times 10 to the 34 years.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “saw no candidate events in the most-studied channel,” The paper describes the channel as the one favoured by many unified theories; "most-studied" was not in it.

Claim 44 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Searches like this one have put the simplest supersymmetric unified theory under serious strain and leave others alive.

Kind
What the field holds. The settled view of a field, as a review, a consensus statement or a reference work gives it. Not one study.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

  • Supports

    Grand Unified Theories (Review of Particle Physics, chapter 92)section 92.6

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · The cited passage was read, 24 September 2026 · Theory · Reference work

    The source reads: As a result, the minimal SUSY SU(5) model is placed under significant tension by current proton decay constraints

  • Supports

    Grand Unified Theories (Review of Particle Physics, chapter 92)section 92.6

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · The cited passage was read, 24 September 2026 · Theory · Reference work

    The source reads: The predicted upper bounds on the nucleon lifetime in some of these theories lie roughly an order of magnitude above current experimental limits

What this does not establish

The strain on the minimal supersymmetric theory comes mainly from searches in another channel by the same detector.

Later work looked for

The 2025 revision of the review is itself the newest field-level source found.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “That rules out some unified theories and leaves others alive.” The Super-Kamiokande paper does not say which theories its limit excludes. The Particle Data Group review says the minimal supersymmetric theory is under significant tension from proton decay limits and that others predict lifetimes above them.

Claim 45 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: It does not establish that protons are stable, which is not a thing an experiment can establish.

Kind
This page’s reading. A judgement the page makes from the evidence. Others read it differently.
Review
A judgement, not a fact. Reviewed for whether it is fairly put and follows from the checked claims. No source can confirm it.

An experiment of finite length sets a lower limit on a lifetime, as this one does; no finite exposure can show the lifetime is infinite.

Claim 46 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Endings the data permit

Claim: Endings the data permit

Kind
This page’s reading. A judgement the page makes from the evidence. Others read it differently.
Review
A judgement, not a fact. Reviewed for whether it is fairly put and follows from the checked claims. No source can confirm it.

Both endings in this section sit inside current measurements (claims 54 and 56) without being favoured by them.

Claim 47 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Both would come later than the universe is now old,

Kind
What a model says. What a theory or model predicts or describes, which is not the same as what has been observed.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

  • Supports

    Phantom Energy: Dark Energy with w < -1 Causes a Cosmic Doomsdaysecond page

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Theory · Model

    The source reads: For example, for w = −3/2 and H₀ = 70 km sec⁻¹ Mpc⁻¹, the time remaining before the Universe ends in this “Big Rip” [31] is 22 Gyr.

    Notation restored: Subscript and superscripts restored from the author’s LaTeX source on arXiv (astro-ph/0302506v1), read 2026-09-24. The text as extracted reads: For example, for w = −3/ 2 and H0 = 70 km sec−1 Mpc−1, the time remaining before the Universe ends in this “Big Rip” [31] is 22 Gyr.

  • Supports

    Scale-invariant instantons and the complete lifetime of the standard modelabstract

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Theory · Model

    The source reads: we produce the first complete calculation of the lifetime of our universe: 10¹⁶¹ years. With 95% confidence, we expect our universe to last more than 10⁶⁵ years.

    Notation restored: Superscripts restored from the authors’ LaTeX source of v4 on arXiv (1707.08124v4), which gives the exponents as 161 and 65, read 2026-09-24. The text as extracted reads: we produce the first complete calculation of the lifetime of our universe: 10 161 years. With 95% confidence, we expect our universe to last more than 10 65 years.

  • Supports

    Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameterssection 8, Conclusions

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026

    The source reads: to the present day at an age of 13.8 billion years

What this does not establish

Caldwell’s 22 billion years is for a strongly phantom example now outside the measurements; by the same paper’s formula the time grows as dark energy approaches a constant. The vacuum figure is an expected lifetime, not a date.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “Every one of these is further away than the present age of the universe,” Reworded so the line says what the two cited calculations give, without claiming a margin for the rip that the sources do not state.

Claim 48 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: one of them by a margin that makes the word soon meaningless.

Kind
This page’s reading. A judgement the page makes from the evidence. Others read it differently.
Review
A judgement, not a fact. Reviewed for whether it is fairly put and follows from the checked claims. No source can confirm it.

The vacuum’s expected lifetime is around 10 to the 161 years, against an age of about 10 to the 10 (claim 58).

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “by a margin that makes the word soon meaningless.” The margin is enormous for the vacuum; for a rip the sources give tens of billions of years or more, which is not the same claim.

Claim 49 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

A rip

Claim: A rip

Kind
Framing. Signposting. It asserts nothing a source could check.

Claim: If dark energy is not merely constant but strengthens, the acceleration eventually tears apart every bound structure, at smaller and smaller scales: clusters, then galaxies, then solar systems, then planets, then atoms.

Kind
What a model says. What a theory or model predicts or describes, which is not the same as what has been observed.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

  • Supports

    Phantom Energy: Dark Energy with w < -1 Causes a Cosmic Doomsdaysecond and third pages; table I

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Theory · Model

    The source reads: the energy density of phantom energy increases with time ... clusters will be stripped roughly a billion years before the end of time ... the Milky Way will get stripped roughly 60 million years before the Big Rip

  • Supports

    Phantom Energy: Dark Energy with w < -1 Causes a Cosmic Doomsdaythird page

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Theory · Model

    The source reads: the Earth will be ripped from the Sun, and ∼ 30 minutes before the end the Earth will fall apart. Similar arguments also apply to objects bound by electromagnetic or strong forces. Thus, molecules and then atoms will be torn apart

What this does not establish

A model result for phantom dark energy, with w below −1, persisting indefinitely.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “the acceleration eventually overwhelms gravity at smaller and smaller scales: clusters, then galaxies, then stars, then atoms.” The paper’s sequence runs clusters, the Milky Way, the solar system, Earth, then atoms, and atoms are held by electromagnetic forces rather than gravity, which the paper says the same argument covers.

Claim 51 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: A 2003 paper worked out the sequence and the timing.

Kind
Historical claim. A statement about the past that historical evidence can test.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

Submitted February 2003, published August 2003.

Claim 52 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Current measurements do not favour this.

Kind
Observation. Something measured or seen, as the named source reports it.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

What this does not establish

In the survey’s preferred parametrisation dark energy was phantom-like in the past and is weakening now, the opposite of what a rip needs.

Later work looked for

The supernova recalibrations of 2025 and 2026 keep the same direction, weakening dark energy today.

Claim 53 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: It remains inside the error bars of what has been measured,

Kind
Observation. Something measured or seen, as the named source reports it.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

A constant equation of state slightly below −1 lies within these uncertainties.

What this does not establish

Only in fits that hold the equation of state constant; the fits that let it vary prefer weakening now.

Later work looked for

DESI DR2 (2025) is the newest constant-w constraint found.

Claim 54 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: which is the only reason it is here.

Kind
This page’s reading. A judgement the page makes from the evidence. Others read it differently.
Review
A judgement, not a fact. Reviewed for whether it is fairly put and follows from the checked claims. No source can confirm it.

The page’s editorial reason for including the rip.

Claim 55 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

A change of vacuum

Claim: A change of vacuum

Kind
Framing. Signposting. It asserts nothing a source could check.

Claim: The measured mass of the Higgs boson sits close to the boundary between a stable vacuum and a metastable one.

Kind
What a model says. What a theory or model predicts or describes, which is not the same as what has been observed.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

  • Supports

    Higgs mass and vacuum stability in the Standard Model at NNLOsection 1, Introduction

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Theory · Model

    The source reads: it is quite close to the minimumMh value that ensures absolute vacuum stability within the Standard Model

  • Supports

    Higgs mass and vacuum stability in the Standard Model at NNLOsection 3

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Theory · Model

    The source reads: there is significant preference for meta-stability of the SM potential. By taking into account all uncertainties, we find that the stability region is disfavored by present data by 2σ.

  • Supports

    Scale-invariant instantons and the complete lifetime of the standard modelsection 8, Conclusions

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Theory · Model

    The source reads: the SM seems to sit in a peculiarly narrow swath of metastability in the phase space of top quark mass, Higgs boson mass, and strong-coupling constant

What this does not establish

Within the Standard Model only. The largest uncertainty is the top quark mass, not the Higgs mass.

Claim 57 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: In the metastable case the vacuum state of the universe is not the lowest available, and could in principle decay, with the new state expanding at the speed of light.

Kind
What a model says. What a theory or model predicts or describes, which is not the same as what has been observed.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

What this does not establish

Standard Model calculations, with no gravity and no new physics.

Claim 58 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: A 2018 calculation, which its authors describe as the first complete one, puts the expected lifetime at around 10 to the 161 years, with an uncertainty of many orders of magnitude.

Kind
What a model says. What a theory or model predicts or describes, which is not the same as what has been observed.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

  • Supports

    Scale-invariant instantons and the complete lifetime of the standard modelabstract; section 6.3

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Theory · Model

    The source reads: we produce the first complete calculation of the lifetime of our universe: 10¹⁶¹ years. ... That is, to 68% confidence, 10¹⁰² < τSM/years < 10³²¹.

    Notation restored: Superscripts restored from the authors’ LaTeX source of v4 on arXiv (1707.08124v4), which writes the exponents as 161, 102 and 321 and the bound on the lifetime in years, read 2026-09-24. The text as extracted reads: we produce the first complete calculation of the lifetime of our universe: 10 161 years. ... That is, to 68% confidence, 10 102 < τSM years < 10321.

What this does not establish

The uncertainty comes mostly from the top quark mass, the strong coupling and threshold corrections.

Later work looked for

Crossref, 2019 on, "electroweak vacuum decay lifetime Standard Model": work on gravity and on black holes catalysing decay adds conditions; nothing found that replaces the Standard Model estimate.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “Calculations put the expected timescale far beyond the age of the universe,” The cited 2012 paper does not give a timescale. A calculation that does was added as a source and its figure given.

Claim 59 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: It assumes no physics beyond the Standard Model, and new physics at high enough energies could make the vacuum stable or destabilise it,

Kind
What a model says. What a theory or model predicts or describes, which is not the same as what has been observed.
Review
Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

  • Supports

    Scale-invariant instantons and the complete lifetime of the standard modelsection 8, Conclusions

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Theory · Model

    The source reads: phase diagram assumes no gravity and no physics beyond the SM. In fact, any arbitrarily high-scale physics can destabilize the SM by opening up new tunneling directions [19, 50, 62, 85–87]. Moreover, near the absolute stability boundary, operators at an arbitrarily high scale can also stabilize the SM

  • Supports

    Higgs mass and vacuum stability in the Standard Model at NNLOsection 5, Conclusions

    Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Theory · Model

    The source reads: ignores possible new (unknown) UV threshold effects occurring near the Planck scale

What this does not establish

The authors add that no sensible lower bound on the lifetime can be given once new physics is allowed.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “and the conclusion depends on the assumption that no unknown physics intervenes between here and energies twelve orders of magnitude higher,” "Twelve orders of magnitude" matched no figure in the sources (the instability scale is around 10 to the 11 GeV, the Planck scale 10 to the 19). The calculation’s stated assumption is no physics beyond the Standard Model at any scale.

Claim 60 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: which is a substantial assumption.

Kind
This page’s reading. A judgement the page makes from the evidence. Others read it differently.
Review
A judgement, not a fact. Reviewed for whether it is fairly put and follows from the checked claims. No source can confirm it.

Follows from claim 60: the result holds only if nothing new appears up to the highest energies.

Claim 61 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

What was read