The Death of A Universe 347
ninthwave writes "The Guardian is running an article on research into the visible effects of entropy in the Universe. Alan Heavens of The University of Edinburgh did the research also posted at The Royal Astronomical Society with this article" I dunno - expansion, heat death - it all reminds me of a teacher who said "I'm not a premillenialist, postmillenialist - I'm a pan-millenialist, as in it's all going to pan out in the end." Update: 08/18 16:36 GMT by S : Headline fixed.
Am grammar died (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Am grammar died (Score:4, Informative)
What he ment was (Score:2)
Re:Am grammar died (Score:2, Informative)
So, my money's on multiverse.
Re:Am grammar died (Score:5, Interesting)
The term Universe from it's root is inherently singluar. There can't be two, because by definition, the two as a whole would then be considered the "Universe", and we'd lack the appropriate term for the two parts. I completely understand that science has subverted this, and decided to use the term multiverse to be unambigious.
About the only place I can even contemplate having more then one Universe, is in mathmatics where you have Universal Sets. There, you make the noun "set" plural.
First the "atom" (the root word means indivisible, guess the guys on the Manhatten project weren't paying attention), now the "universe" (its root means roughly all inclusive of everything). Can't we wait until we are sure of the properties before we name things. That's why multiverse, and sub-atomic particles are oxymorons.
Kirby
Re:Am grammar died (Score:2)
Re:Am grammar died (Score:3, Funny)
Now I'm worried (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Now I'm worried (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Now I'm worried (Score:2)
Re:Now I'm worried (Score:2)
1. The cardinal number equal to 10^9.
2. Chiefly British. The cardinal number equal to 10^12.
Re:Now I'm worried (Score:2)
Re:Now I'm worried (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Now I'm worried (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Now I'm worried (Score:3, Funny)
Just an aside, in one of his books, Sagan tells a story about how he was working at an observatory late one New Years Eve. A guy calls up and Sagan can hear
Re:Now I'm worried (Score:2)
U of E (Score:5, Funny)
"Computer! Oh computer?"
Re:U of E (Score:2)
It's called Quartz
Re:U of E (Score:2)
Re:U of E (Score:2)
Was there really a need to sit around in the spaceship gawking at a whale? What a stupid movie that was. Never let Kirk direct.
You know how those ex-Admirals are, everything has to be so flashy.
Re:U of E (Score:2)
W has decided: (Score:3, Funny)
Oh, and Karl Rove has declared that entropy was created during the Clinton administration and a partisan Congress has prevented W from eliminating it.
vapor (Score:2, Funny)
HEY! You'll see it ... (Score:2)
Re:vapor (Score:2)
Forget it. That game is never going to come out.
Doom 3 was conceived and coded long after DNF was supposed to be out 'the first time'. Interesting display of how 1 'super programmer'(Carmack) can be so much more productive than a team of average guys(3d Realms).
wbs.
Job description (Score:5, Funny)
Gravity and Heat (Score:5, Interesting)
We have only just begun to think about the shape of the universe. As in... What is at the edge, and what is beyond that? Or does it curl around in a sort of 11 dimentional sphery type thing. Figuring out the total heat or mass in the universe is still way beyond us.
We don't yet have a theory of gravity that works for the galaxy, or fits with electromagnetic and nuclear forces.
Re:Gravity and Heat (Score:2)
Don't worry... I'm on it.
Dang It! (Score:2)
Just when I get a good
Virg
Universe ripped apart (Score:5, Interesting)
IANAP, so anyone who is one, or studying to become one care to comment?
I for one (Score:3, Funny)
Does it matter? (Score:2, Insightful)
I think MC Steven Hawking Says it best... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I think MC Steven Hawking Says it best... (Score:3, Funny)
Let me guess, it's not your server?
Interesting, but I don't put much faith into it. (Score:5, Interesting)
When I was an undergraduate, my astrophysics and cosmology courses went into a number of models. The problem isn't that any of these models are inherently wrong. The real problem is that we don't have the observational evidence to choose and properly parameterize any particular model. Hasn't anyone else noticed the constant influx of observations that favor one model or another? I don't think these observations are necessarily wrong either, they are just pushing our techniques to their limits.
Not long ago, a new and very interesting model was published [princeton.edu]. It fits well with observations. Anyone with a passing interest in cosmology and/or string theory should read that paper, it's very short and easily digestable. This idea is, of course, very interesting. Is it actually the way the universe works? Hmmm, I don't know. We just don't have the observational capability to say with a high degree of certainty how the universe will evolve on a long timescale.
Sure, I like hearing about the latest measurements and calculations. But, I take it all with a megaparsec-scale cloud of sodium. It's interesting, but not too meaningful, most of the time.
This debate is definitely going to go on for some years to come. In fact, it may well not have a good answer for 5-15 gigayears.
Re:Interesting, but I don't put much faith into it (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Interesting, but I don't put much faith into it (Score:4, Informative)
The Last Question (Score:5, Interesting)
My take on this (Score:4, Interesting)
Perhaps they will find a way to teleport into the new universe they create, each life form becoming truly a God.
Re:My take on this (Score:2, Funny)
Re:My take on this (Score:2)
Seriously, I wonder if my scenario will come true - life has this amazing survival instinct; you can find life on earth almost anywhere, from the deepest ocean to the highest mountain, from the coldest places to the hottest.
Faced with a problem so huge (a dying universe), the likely millions of intelligent species which remain will be working flat out for a solution to the problem. Do they somehow travel backwards through time to when the universe was just a few billion ye
Re:My take on this (Score:2)
Re:My take on this (Score:2)
Re:My take on this (Score:2)
See James Blish's The Triumph of Time (1958), part of his Cities in Flight [amazon.co.uk] series.
Time for Spybot (Score:2)
It gets better (Score:2)
they have neglected hawking radiation (Score:3, Informative)
I think, however that the scientists haven't accounted for the effects of hawking radiation, which is basically the energy given out when a piece of matter falls into a black hole. Hawking radiation is obtained from matter that is otherwise lost frrm the universe and as such does not obey the classical laws of thermodynamics. Because of this the amount of energy in the universe is actually increasing although the rate at which it is doing so is extremely slow. As mentioned by the article however the number of black holes is increasing (all matter is drawn together by gravity so in a long enough timescale it will eventually coalesce to form a black hole) and so the hawking radiation will increase. It is therefore likely that in a billion years from now, the sky will actually be brighter than it is now, not from stars (which as the article points out will have disappeared) but from a brilliant glow of hawking radiation.
Re:they have neglected hawking radiation (Score:2)
Hawking radiation is obtained from matter that is otherwise lost frrm the universe and as such does not obey the classical laws of thermodynamics. Because of this the amount of energy in the universe is actually increasing although the rate at which it is doing so is extremely slow.
Wrong, the black hole loses mass in exact proportion to the energy radiated away, mass-energy is still C
Heavens (Score:2)
One of the guys who did the work:
Professor Alan Heavens
Great science fiction short story (Score:2, Interesting)
um, sure... (Score:4, Funny)
This guy must have been fun at parties.
'The lamps are going out all over the universe.' (Score:4, Funny)
Sad news, Universe dead at ~14 Gyr (Score:4, Funny)
Earth not to be engulfed! (Score:5, Interesting)
The sun will swell to become a red giant until it engulfs Earth.
Actually, it's been recently shown (1 [nature.com], 2 [planetary.org]) that Earth could survive Sol's expansion, though it would be really frickin' hot!
-l
Re:Earth not to be engulfed! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Earth not to be engulfed! (Score:3, Funny)
I was amused by this line (from the second link): "Perhaps this 200 million year reprieve will give humans enough time to form their own survival capsules and escape into deep space."
I think that if we really haven't invented "survival capsules" 5.5 billion years from now, that another 200 million
two reasons for lights going out (Score:2, Insightful)
In my understanding the lights would be observed to go out for two reasons:
First, young stars form at vertices of intersecting matter bubbles and sheaths, where the concentration is highest. If a vertex reaches a high enough density it coalesces, gets critically hot so fusion can start. Problem is the average density of vertices is dropping, so less will go critical.
Second, cosmic expansion wil
Life is short: (Score:3, Interesting)
So I guess that Jimmy Dean, John Belushi, Keith Moon and Bon Scott were blue stars eh?
wbs.
Hemos went to School! (Score:2, Funny)
I dunno - expansion, heat death - it all reminds me of a teacher who said "I'm not a premillenialist, postmillenialist - I'm a pan-millenialist, as in it's all going to pan out in the end."
Hemos, this does prove that you have been to a school and even listened to what the teacher was saying!!
Netcraft confirms it! (Score:2, Funny)
The Death of An Career (Score:5, Funny)
You have embarrassed we for the last time. Get an box and clean out you locker.
Loves,
Taco
What the?! (Score:2)
That's like an Ice-cream man named Cone!
well, the good new is (Score:3)
phew!
Oh dear lord... (Score:2)
And if you think that's normal, look at the headline aboVE titled "Ask a Music Producer..."
Frankly, I'm tired of seeing these editors jumble up the English language so badly, and furthermo-
Hold on, someone's at the door...
END LINE
The lights will get brighter before they dim (Score:3, Interesting)
I believe that the projected time when Andromeda galaxy collides with our Milky Way (they ARE headed for collision) is around 100 million years hence (correction anyone?). This collision will induce a profusion of star formations and may end up ejecting our star/solar system out of the galaxy entirely. Or, we may end up in the Andromeda galaxy as it moves on its merry way, or...
In any case, the lights are scheduled to burst anew in a plethora of star formation in the nearish future. Of course, several BILLION years later, the trend remains as mentioned.
Obligatory Rimshot (Score:3, Funny)
You'd think someone would have noticed before then. They were behind the couch the whole time.
Ba-BOOM! Thanks, I'm here all evening.
"Time Without End" (Score:3, Interesting)
For a good foray into the future history of an open universe, see Freeman Dyson's classic, "Time Without End: Physics and Biology In an Open Universe" [think-aboutit.com].
It's worth pointing out that up until just recently, pretty much everyone was sure that the universe would be closed (although it appears pretty flat). The recent supernova measurements indicate a universe that's expanding faster and faster, so we now have very strong reason to believe the universe is in fact open, but when people like Dyson were speculating about the possible future of an open universe, it was considered highly speculative and rather academic (since everyone was sure that we didn't live in one).
Re:"An Universe"? (Score:2)
It also bugs me when people say "an historic" instead of simply "a historic," as in "that's quite a historic event." (Try saying it out loud both ways.)
But language is an evolving invention of the people and not a set of rules defended by an elite crackerjack force of grammar gnomes. Although it pains me to say it, I believe "it's" has now become an acceptable way to write the possesive of "it," for example, given that nearly everyone does it.
Oh, and to get back on-topic: space...<drool
Re:"An Universe"? (Score:2, Interesting)
So what benefits are there for having one rule for the 'it' pronoun and another for every other noun? I've been corrected many times on this issue, and I'm genuinely curious as to the origin of this rule and why it's supposed to make more sense.
Re:"An Universe"? (Score:2)
Also, it isn't the only word that has a possessive with no apostrophe. Think of other pronouns, such as ours, theirs, hers. You don't write our's or her's, do you?
To be most technical, every (I think every) personal pronoun has a possessive case, and these never have apostrophes. Those only apply when you want to make a noun possesive ("it" is not a noun).
Female, 3rd Person:
Subjective = she
Objective = her
Possessive = hers
Re:"An Universe"? (Score:2)
Re:"An Universe"? (Score:2)
ARRGGGAHHHHHAAGGHHH!
STOP it with the grammar lesson, PLEASE!
I used to fall asleep in elementary school English daydreaming about space, but I still learned what irony is.
PS this isn't just addressed to you, Yama. It's just that you're post was the last in the thread.
Re:"An Universe"? (Score:3, Informative)
The people who spell it "an historic" aren't pronouncing the "h". I say it and spell it the way you do, but AFAIK they're both valid pronounciations.
TheFrood
Re:"An Universe"? (Score:2, Insightful)
> pronouncing the "h".
But they are, and do! That's what's so silly about it. It seems to be a fashion amongst meeja types in particular to say, "an" before any word beginning with h, regardless of how it's pronounced.
For a word like "honour" (or "honor" for left-ponders), practically no-one pronounces the h so "an honour" is perfectly sensible.
For the word "hotel", there is a school of thought which pronounces it the French way, without the h and so f
Re:"An Universe"? (Score:2)
I don't think so. It might be okay to 'swallow' the H if it follows a consonant. For example, when a person talks rather quickly, not many would miss the H of 'historic' in this sentence: "It was the greatest historic event of that decade." However, you should hear the H when it follows a vowel, and 'a' is a vowel. It is only changed to 'an' if it precedes a v
Re:"An Universe"? (Score:2)
Re:"An Universe"? (Score:2)
http://www.bartleby.com/64/C003/001.html
Re:"An Universe"? (Score:5, Funny)
Tell that to the French.
*rimshot*
Re:"An Universe"? (Score:2)
No it aint. I make a lot of typos, but I don't try to excuse them by saying "nearly everyone does it". It's still a mistake, and it's not really that hard to remember, is it?
Re:"An Universe"? (Score:2)
Re:"An Universe"? (Score:3, Informative)
what ignorant fool writes "your" as the contraction for YOU ARE???
Re:"An Universe"? (Score:5, Funny)
aaaahhh, forget it..
I, for one, welcome our grammar-challenged Slashdot Editor overlords.
Re:"An Universe"? (with apologies to Monty Python) (Score:3, Funny)
Anne Elk: "Not Anne Expert, Anne Elk!"
Announcer: "Yes. Sorry. Today we have a-n expert, not a-n-n-e Expert on... the Universe..."
Anne Elk: "That's right Chris, I am."
Announcer: "An Expert?"
Anne Elk: "No... Anne Elk"
Tim
Re:"An Universe"? (Score:4, Informative)
Ex. A + hour ---> "An hour"
In this case, the [n] sound is epenthetic.
I'm sure some folks studying phonology can give us the official formula for English... I guess the [n] only pops up between the determiner "a" and a vowel sound-initial word. The "yoo" sound in "universe" is a semivowel
Re:"An Universe"? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it's called a mistake, because the language doesn't dictate it, a semi-literate "editor" does, who remembers half the rule he learnt in primary school. It's the mindless extension of a rule, like putting an apostrophe before every final "s" when it's neither a possessive nor a contraction.
Re:"An Universe"? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:"An Universe"? (Score:2)
Re:"An Universe"? (Score:2)
So tell me: what's it like being such a god damn idiot? Is it any fun? It's a big step to take, but if it's worth it, I'd like to try it too. So how has your experience with god damn idiocy been, and would you recommend I try it?
Re:"An Universe"? (Score:3, Insightful)
If there is another universe, which is in any way connected with our universe, I don't think you could really call it a different universe. It is just a part of our universe which has not been discovered yet.
If OTOH you think about a different universe in no way connected to our universe, they can not ever affect each other. In that case that different universe does not exist. At least it does not exist using physicist's definition of existence.
Ahh, You You You (Score:2)
I'm here defending deese two youts...
Re:What a joke! (Score:5, Insightful)
The answer is obvious.
Re:What a joke! (Score:2, Insightful)
I understand the concept of studying all of these various "snapshots" in time that show us what happened at thre far reaches of our universe billions of years ago, but I've never understood how astronomers can make such "matter of fact" claims when the amount of change that we've been able to observe in these windows to the past seem so statistically irrelevant (i.e. 100 years out of 100 trillion years).
Who's to say that light from thous
Re:What a joke! (Score:3, Informative)
What the "snapshots" of x billion years ago/light years away tell us is not just what that particular g
Re:What a joke! (Score:2, Funny)
Who then, if not humans, would you suggest make grandiose statements?
Re:karma burning gripe (Score:2)
Re:karma burning gripe (Score:2)
Sometimes I do look at the home page of a site after reading an article, but I NEVER go back to the Slashdot article to do so, just click on the link at the top of the article page (there is always one), or truncate the URL.
Re:karma burning gripe (Score:2)
Re:karma burning gripe (Score:2)
The latter is much worse than the first, IMO.
Most well-designed sites have a big old link to the frontpage on every article. And if you want to put in a frontpage link just to be nice, it should probably be only around the name of the publication, not a big sentence.
Re:karma burning gripe (Score:2)
The question is not of having the "top" link instead of but AS WELL AS the deep link. What purpose does it serve? It just doubles the number of links in the article, adding ones that no one ever clicks.
And as often mentioned, if sites don't like deep links it's easy to bounce them by using referrer ch
Re:fascinating (Score:2)