Cited by 232Cosmology and Gravitation TheoriesGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, PhenomenaDark Matter and Cosmic Phenomena

A LARGER ESTIMATE OF THE ENTROPY OF THE UNIVERSE

Open access
Egan, Chas A., Lineweaver, Charles H.·2010·The Astrophysical Journal

Abstract

Using recent measurements of the supermassive black hole (SMBH) mass function, we find that SMBHs are the largest contributor to the entropy of the observable universe, contributing at least an order of magnitude more entropy than previously estimated. The total entropy of the observable universe is correspondingly higher, and is S obs = 3.1 +3.0 −1.7 × 10 104 k . We calculate the entropy of the current cosmic event horizon to be S CEH = 2.6 ± 0.3 × 10 122 k , dwarfing the entropy of its interior, S CEH int = 1.2 +1.1 −0.7 × 10 103 k . We make the first tentative estimate of the entropy of weakly interacting massive particle dark matter within the observable universe, S dm = 10 88 ± 1 k . We highlight several caveats pertaining to these estimates and make recommendations for future work.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1088/0004-637x/710/2/1825

Cites

48 of 48 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The total coarse-grained entropy in the observable Universe is Stotobs≈(5.9+4.1+2.0+3.1×10^14)×10^88.

    “Stotobs≃Sγ+Sν+SIGM+SBH≈(5.9+4.1+2.0+3.1×1014)×1088”

    From Counting Cosmic Cycles: Past Big Crunches, Future Recurrence Limits, and the Age of the Quantum Memory Matrix Universe (2025) · cites this paper as [40]

    Section 2.7 reports supermassive-black-hole entropy of 3.1 × 10^104 k, supporting the dominant term and approximate total. But Sections 2.2 and 2.3 give photon and neutrino entropies of 2.03 × 10^89 k and 5.16 × 10^89 k, not the claimed 5.9 × 10^88 and 4.1 × 10^88. Section 2.1 estimates combined interstellar and intergalactic gas entropy at 7.1 × 10^81 k, not the claimed IGM term. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Equation (9) agrees with the benchmark compilation Stotobs=(3.1±0.3)×10^104 by Egan and Lineweaver.

    “Equation (9) agrees with the benchmark compilation Stotobs=(3.1±0.3)×10104 by Egan and Lineweaver [40].”

    From Counting Cosmic Cycles: Past Big Crunches, Future Recurrence Limits, and the Age of the Quantum Memory Matrix Universe (2025) · cites this paper as [40]

    Section 2.7 (page unavailable) gives an entropy estimate of 3.1 × 10^104 k for supermassive black holes, consistent with the claimed central value. But its uncertainty is asymmetric, +3.0/−1.7 × 10^104 k, not ±0.3 × 10^104; the quoted benchmark is therefore not accurate. (LLM, conf=0.94)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The higher Egan and Lineweaver entropy value includes dark matter phase-space entropy, which QMM excludes because it is represented separately as imprint entropy.

    “(Their higher value includes dark matter phase-space entropy, which we exclude because in QMM it is represented separately as imprint entropy.)”

    From Counting Cosmic Cycles: Past Big Crunches, Future Recurrence Limits, and the Age of the Quantum Memory Matrix Universe (2025) · cites this paper as [40]

    Section 2.5 (page unavailable) includes an estimate of dark-matter entropy in the observable universe, but derives it from assumptions about dark-matter decoupling; it does not identify the estimate as phase-space entropy. Section 2.7 (page unavailable) attributes the higher overall entropy estimate to a larger supermassive-black-hole contribution. The statement about QMM's imprint entropy is the citing authors' own explanation, not a claim established by this source. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Egan and Lineweaver (2010) found a numerical value for the de Sitter event horizon entropy, given in Eq. (5).

    “Taking into account the present uncertainties in the cosmological data, Egan and Lineweaver (2010) found from this the following numerical value:”

    From On a quantum Weyl curvature hypothesis (2022) · cites this paper as Egan and Lineweaver (2010)

    Section 3, Eq. (40), gives a numerical entropy with uncertainty, 2.6 ± 0.3 × 10^122 k, for the present cosmic event horizon. It does not identify that value as the entropy of the asymptotic de Sitter horizon; Section 3 says the horizon is still growing toward its future size. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The biggest contribution to non-gravitational entropy comes from CMB photons, with a slightly smaller value for relic neutrinos.

    “the biggest contribution to non-gravitational entropy comes from the CMB photons, with the value”

    From On a quantum Weyl curvature hypothesis (2022) · cites this paper as Egan and Lineweaver (2010)

    Section 2.2 calls CMB photons the most significant non-black-hole entropy contributor, and Sections 2.2–2.3 give relic neutrinos a slightly lower entropy density than CMB photons. However, the total entropy values printed in those sections put relic neutrinos above CMB photons, so the claimed ranking of their total contributions is not consistently supported by our copy. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Binney, J., & Tremaine, S. 2008, Galactic Dynamics (2nd ed; Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press)
  2. Frampton, P. H. 2009a, arXiv:0904.2934 · arXiv
  3. Peacock, J. A. 1999, Cosmological Physics (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press)
  4. S. W. Hawking & W. Israel (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press), 581

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Egan, C. A., & Lineweaver, C. H.
Affiliations
Australian National University (AU)
Corresponding author
Egan, Chas A.
Venue
The Astrophysical Journal
Published
2010-02-03
Volume
710
Issue
2
Pages
1825-1834
ISSN
  • 0004-637X (ISSN-L)
  • 1538-4357
OpenAlex
W2100463561
Cited by
232
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 43 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 10
FWCI
6.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Astrophysical Journal (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • ANU Open Research (Australian National University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Cosmology and Gravitation Theories
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Galaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Nuclear and High Energy Physics › Dark Matter and Cosmic Phenomena
Keywords
supermassive black holes, cosmic event horizon, WIMPs, black hole entropy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review