Universe May Be Running Out of Time 343
RenHoek writes "With heat death, the big crunch and quite a few other nasty ways in which the universe could see its demise, we can now add "running out of time" to the list. A team of scientists came up with a new theory that would solve the problem of the elusive dark energy that seems to be accelerating the expansion of the universe. They figure that the universe is not speeding up but we are, in relation to the outer regions of space, slowing down. Tests with the upcoming Large Hadron Collider will give more insight if we're going to end up frozen in time."
We'll have to rethink everything (Score:1, Insightful)
er...define 'constant'... (Score:5, Insightful)
But how can you measure the "rate" at which time itself is changing? If "change in time" (dt) is going to go in the numerator, what will go in the denominator? Can't be dt, of course. So how do you define the "rate" at which time changes? I can't think of anything. It's like asking the price of money. "Price" means "how much you get per unit money." You can't ask how much money you get per unit money. (Note to nitpickers: the price of currency, e.g. the price of dollars in drachma, is not a valid counterexample.)
I'm sure the physics makes sense, but the language in this news article does not. If anyone knows what the actual science is, I at least would be grateful for a better explanation than this news article provides. Anyone?
Re:Read the last line of the article first (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:er...define 'constant'... (Score:1, Insightful)
A hour is one 'second' per second, but, it can accelerate to one 'second' every half second, or decelerate to one 'second' every two seconds. I don't know the right words for it, but, I can clearly visualize this in my head.
Re:er...define 'constant'... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Can we stop it? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:er...define 'constant'... (Score:4, Insightful)
First, imagine time can be described in term of space, that is perhaps 1 second = 1 meter. Now as you move through just the time axis you take a measurement with a piece of string, say to about 0.5m, then you keep going down the time axis for a bit and you take another measurement with another piece of string to 0.5m again. Then you compare the string lengths, the second would be shorter if this theory were correct.
Okay, that first one doesn't make a whole lot of sense so let's move on! Consider Spacetime as a 4-dimensional manifold [wikipedia.org]. Now consider the metric [wikipedia.org] on this space, at least the time portion of it, as tending to zero as t->infinity. That is the distance between points shrinks on the t-axis*.
That may not be the best of explanations but hopefully that helps a bit. My second example is very colloquial, I'm not a physicist so this is just how I can picture it =P.
*For an example of a Non-Euclidean Metric check out The Riemann Sphere. [wikipedia.org]
Re:Pretty vague description of the problem... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:EXCELSIOR!! (Score:4, Insightful)
Nah, that's the funny part of it. He can only actually get recognition if he fails.
If the environmentalists are successful, then nothing will happen.
It's like the Y2K bug: All those people working to ensure that nothing happens. So when in Y2K, nothing happened, the general response was "huh, guess there never was a problem after all."
Re:Read the last line of the article first (Score:3, Insightful)
If you don't believe me subscribe to new scientist for a while. Every issue a new multi dimensional theory that could help to explain some feature of the universe but can only be proved/disproved at energies that we can't reach.
This is in essence what I'm saying. We are too far removed from being able to test these theories, that they are not likely to be correct. String theory is over 30 years old and we still haven't been able to prove or disprove it. Think about that, people have spent their entire careers working on a theory that many not be proved or disproved in their lifetimes. I think we were spoiled by the rate of rapid advance in the 20th century.
I never said physics was not science, but more like science fiction where you don't really have to prove anything just suggest something is plausible.
Re:Speed of light slowing down? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Dodgy, dodgy, dodgy ... (Score:1, Insightful)
"Inerrancy" implies ID at best, young-earth creationism at worst. If we take the Bible literally, Creation in seven days is not supported by science.
A "liberal" interpretation of the Bible certainly has no problems with science. However, I would argue that looking for scientific support for the Bible is a misguided search. With religious texts being so open to interpretation, there's a guaranteed confirmation bias [wikipedia.org]. If scientists overturn the Big Bang theory, there'll be no trouble justifying it with Creation. "Why, the universe has always existed, with no beginning? Of course, God made it that way!"
It's all too easy to justify religious beliefs.