If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(io9)   The Universe may tear itself apart in 16.7 billion years, which is 75% sooner than predicted. No word on how to blame someone for it. Yet   (io9.com) divider line 152
    More: Interesting, universe, magnetisms, curve fitting, redshifts, cosmologists, dark energy  
•       •       •

3975 clicks; posted to Geek » on 29 Jul 2012 at 6:26 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



152 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-29 08:45:50 PM
Does no one else find this utterly depressing? Everything that ever is, was, just wiped out? Our entire existence not even as relevant as tears in the rain.

... so when the universe does end, what is there afterwards?
 
2012-07-29 08:48:13 PM
Clearly, something of this magnitude could only have been brought about by the global Zionist conspiracy working hand in hand with the Illuminati.
 
2012-07-29 08:58:41 PM

Clowns are a Ten: Does no one else find this utterly depressing? Everything that ever is, was, just wiped out? Our entire existence not even as relevant as tears in the rain.

... so when the universe does end, what is there afterwards?


So atheists wonder why people are religious. You just gave that very reason. Faith gives reason to believe that everything doesn't simply end one day, leaving every action and event as a meaningless occurrence in a no longer existent universe. If there is no God, it doesn't matter whether anyone believes or not since it'll all be for naught anyway, but if there is, at least there is hope.

/I know, I know.
//The popcorn must already be coming out.
 
2012-07-29 09:02:35 PM
F*cking republicans and their inability to spend money on infrastructure...
 
2012-07-29 09:03:52 PM

Clowns are a Ten: Does no one else find this utterly depressing? Everything that ever is, was, just wiped out? Our entire existence not even as relevant as tears in the rain.

... so when the universe does end, what is there afterwards?


What was there before? I think Penn Jillette made this point best, which regards to death and non-existence: Does the year 1850 terrify you? You didn't exist then either. So why are you terrified of not existing in 2150? Also, think about how much envy someone who only got, say, 4 days of life would have for your 80+ years of likely existence. On the grander scale you suggest, if you're not depressed by the universe not existing before the big bang (or so we think), there's no particular reason you should be depressed about it not existing 40 billion years later. And what amount of time would be more appropriate? Do you want 10 billion more years? 100? The only other option is infinite life and infinite existence, which has it's own 'meaningless' and depressing aspects to think about if you really wanted to.

It all comes down to perspective: If you think about the idea that life and the universe are these unfathomably wonderful gifts, and that we get to enjoy them for incredibly vast stretches amounts of time, you could be elated about it, instead of depressed.
 
2012-07-29 09:04:18 PM
Dark matter?


Everybody knows the jews are going to do it.
 
2012-07-29 09:07:30 PM

Mikey1969: meanmutton: Marcus Aurelius: Nabb1: Hmm... Good question, but at this point I would remind everyone that our solar system lost a planet under Dubya.

You'll never hear THAT reported on FOX News, that's for sure.

Pluto Not Even Biggest 'Dwarf Planet' Any More, Thanks For Nothing W

The whole Pluto thing STILL bothers me... I still don't understand how you retroactively set standards when they already exist. If they had set the minimum standards AT Pluto, that would make sense. I guess that's what happens when a rocket scientist like Dubya is in charge of things. ;-)




The problem was that there weren't any standards set. Everyone just "knew" there were 9 planets. So the smart guys finally decided what counts as a planet, and Pluto, while great, just didn't fit the criteria. If we had set the minimum standards AT Pluto, there'd be dozens of planets.
 
2012-07-29 09:08:43 PM
Sounds like god's been playing dice with the universe all along.

16.7 billion years until it craps out.
 
2012-07-29 09:12:36 PM
I am so glad I found this out! I was all set to pre-order tickets for the 16,700,002,012 Olympics.
 
2012-07-29 09:17:30 PM

maddan: I am so glad I found this out! I was all set to pre-order tickets for the 16,700,002,012 Olympics.


Yeah, the only event will be the elementary particle at -273C walk. Probably be pretty dull.
 
2012-07-29 09:18:27 PM
Well I'm rather certain I won't be alive then unless it turns out I'm one of those Highlander immortals, so my give a damn is busted.
 
2012-07-29 09:22:00 PM

Smeggy Smurf: Dark matter?


Everybody knows the jews are going to do it.


The Jew Matter is just using the Dark Matter as it's muscle.
 
2012-07-29 09:32:19 PM

PirateKing: The problem was that there weren't any standards set. Everyone just "knew" there were 9 planets. So the smart guys finally decided what counts as a planet, and Pluto, while great, just didn't fit the criteria. If we had set the minimum standards AT Pluto, there'd be dozens of planets.


And there is no problem with that. Our "standard" up to that time was 9 planets. Having "dozens" wouldn't change anything. It's like suddenly deciding that a Bassett Hound isn't a dog because his ears are too long, after calling it a dog for years. Not the best analogy, but it gets my point across well enough. Pluto orbits the Sun and has moons. It's a little shaky, but it does still orbit the sun, I would have been fine if they had set it up as the lower limit... I mean what if they discover another gas giant out past Pluto's orbit, will it not count because it is too big or something? It just seems like someone woke up one morning and arbitrarily decided what he wanted a planet to equal, and then convinced everyone else that his was way "right"...
 
2012-07-29 09:35:42 PM
Universe, how quaint. All the hipster scientists are working on multiverse theories.
 
2012-07-29 09:44:24 PM
Kitty not gonna be here. Kitty gonna pick up n go to 'nother universe next door.
 
2012-07-29 09:46:59 PM
The smart money is on my liver, and the under.
 
2012-07-29 09:50:13 PM
One day after the extended warranty runs out. What are they saying on Consumerist?
 
2012-07-29 09:52:28 PM

Clowns are a Ten: Does no one else find this utterly depressing? Everything that ever is, was, just wiped out? Our entire existence not even as relevant as tears in the rain.


i47.tinypic.com

All we are is dust in the wind, dude.
 
2012-07-29 09:57:57 PM
static.thecia.com.au
Don't worry, they're... dammit!
Only 15 minutes late, still improving.

kbronsito: could this be prevented by changing the universe's cosmological constant?

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 692x530]

 
2012-07-29 10:07:15 PM
That infinite dark energy is just going to rip out a few of those curled-up dimensions from m-theory and it will be the next big bang. Then we get a new universe, with maybe some different rules this time.
 
2012-07-29 10:08:36 PM

Virtuoso80: Clowns are a Ten: Does no one else find this utterly depressing? Everything that ever is, was, just wiped out? Our entire existence not even as relevant as tears in the rain.

... so when the universe does end, what is there afterwards?

What was there before? I think Penn Jillette made this point best, which regards to death and non-existence: Does the year 1850 terrify you? You didn't exist then either. So why are you terrified of not existing in 2150? Also, think about how much envy someone who only got, say, 4 days of life would have for your 80+ years of likely existence. On the grander scale you suggest, if you're not depressed by the universe not existing before the big bang (or so we think), there's no particular reason you should be depressed about it not existing 40 billion years later. And what amount of time would be more appropriate? Do you want 10 billion more years? 100? The only other option is infinite life and infinite existence, which has it's own 'meaningless' and depressing aspects to think about if you really wanted to.

It all comes down to perspective: If you think about the idea that life and the universe are these unfathomably wonderful gifts, and that we get to enjoy them for incredibly vast stretches amounts of time, you could be elated about it, instead of depressed.


The way I think about it is to try to recall everything that happened to me before I was born, which is, unsurprisingly, nothing. Then I realize that that is the exact situation I'm going back into after I die. The first was painlessly unfathomable, and so will the second be.
 
2012-07-29 10:23:46 PM

Mikey1969: PirateKing: The problem was that there weren't any standards set. Everyone just "knew" there were 9 planets. So the smart guys finally decided what counts as a planet, and Pluto, while great, just didn't fit the criteria. If we had set the minimum standards AT Pluto, there'd be dozens of planets.

And there is no problem with that. Our "standard" up to that time was 9 planets. Having "dozens" wouldn't change anything. It's like suddenly deciding that a Bassett Hound isn't a dog because his ears are too long, after calling it a dog for years. Not the best analogy, but it gets my point across well enough. Pluto orbits the Sun and has moons. It's a little shaky, but it does still orbit the sun, I would have been fine if they had set it up as the lower limit... I mean what if they discover another gas giant out past Pluto's orbit, will it not count because it is too big or something? It just seems like someone woke up one morning and arbitrarily decided what he wanted a planet to equal, and then convinced everyone else that his was way "right"...


A decision had to be made one way or the other. If Pluto is considered a planet, then so should Eris and possibly hundreds of other transneptunian objects of comparable size. A three-part definition was therefore chosen: It has to orbit the sun (if it orbits another star, it's an exoplanet or dwarf version thereof), it has to be massive enough to assume a spherical or spheroidal shape under its own gravity, and it has to have "cleared the neighborhood" around its orbit. Part 3 eliminates Pluto (its orbit crosses that of Neptune), Ceres (it's in the middle of the asteroid belt), and most TNOs regardless of size unless they happen to occupy "cleared" orbits (the ones discovered so far tend to have eccentric orbits, the ranges of which would be virtually impossible to clear of other objects).

Of course, if someone discovers a Neptune-sized TNO in an eccentric orbit, they'll have to change the definition again, unless nobody complains about a "dwarf planet" many times larger than Earth.
 
2012-07-29 11:00:50 PM

vogonity: I don't know where you guys will be that night, but I'll be partying with Hotblack Desiato at Milliways.


The Prophet Zarquon and I will be waiting for you.
 
2012-07-29 11:01:15 PM
I've seen something similar to this already.

i.ytimg.com
 
2012-07-29 11:03:23 PM
I'm growing a goatee, perhaps I can sneak into the evil universe.
 
2012-07-29 11:06:03 PM
I want to know what happens when the quarks in protons and neutrons are forced apart. This will require giving them more mass than they have confined in particles. Do the Laws of Thermodynamics suddenly go out the window?
 
2012-07-29 11:07:32 PM

common sense is an oxymoron: ...Part 3 eliminates Pluto (its orbit crosses that of Neptune), Ceres (it's in the middle of the asteroid belt), and most TNOs regardless of size unless they happen to occupy "cleared" orbits (the ones discovered so far tend to have eccentric orbits, the ranges of which would be virtually impossible to clear of other objects)....


If Part 3 eliminates Pluto, shouldn't it also eliminate Neptune? Pluto couldn't clear Neptune out of its orbit, sure, but apparently Neptune couldn't clear Pluto either.
 
2012-07-29 11:10:30 PM

Mikey1969: Makh: I'll be roughly 6 billion years old when that happens. I'm sure I'll be pretty chill.

You aren't going to be born for another 10.7 billion years? Wow, what's life like in the future? Have they fixed the Republican Party yet?


No, I picked the short straw so they sent me back here. It's not going so well.
 
2012-07-29 11:16:23 PM

the cake is a pie: common sense is an oxymoron: ...Part 3 eliminates Pluto (its orbit crosses that of Neptune), Ceres (it's in the middle of the asteroid belt), and most TNOs regardless of size unless they happen to occupy "cleared" orbits (the ones discovered so far tend to have eccentric orbits, the ranges of which would be virtually impossible to clear of other objects)....

If Part 3 eliminates Pluto, shouldn't it also eliminate Neptune? Pluto couldn't clear Neptune out of its orbit, sure, but apparently Neptune couldn't clear Pluto either.


Actually Pluto and Neptune will never get closer than about a billion miles from each other. Pluto has an orbit "above" Neptune's on the plane of the solar system when they cross each other.
 
2012-07-29 11:21:48 PM
Seriously? Was I the only one who thought that a percentage preceding "sooner" should be >100% if the speed at which it is arriving is greater than previously thought?
In my mind 75% sooner is (speed) * 0.75, so... slower.
In the same way that, if you replaced "sooner" with "quicker / faster" that it would be the same.
 
2012-07-29 11:22:17 PM
I've heard this before....

There's something very important I forgot to tell you.
What?
Don't cross the streams.
Why?
It would be bad.
I'm fuzzy on the whole good/bad thing. What do you mean, "bad"?
Try to imagine all life as you know it stopping instantaneously and every molecule in your body exploding at the speed of light.
Total protonic reversal.
Right. That's bad. Okay. All right. Important safety tip. Thanks, Egon.
 
2012-07-29 11:27:22 PM

kbronsito: could this be prevented by changing the universe's cosmological constant?

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 692x530]


came here for this. Leaving satisfied.
 
2012-07-29 11:48:32 PM
us9.memecdn.com

/hot, unlike heat death
 
2012-07-30 12:07:03 AM
fc05.deviantart.net
/oblig
 
2012-07-30 12:11:09 AM
I think I know the culprit.

mlkshk.com
 
2012-07-30 12:25:13 AM
Wow this happens to be the same as my favorite sci-fi short story by Stephen Baxter (takes a few second to redirect to the archives content).

In this story, scientists find out that dark energy is accelerating and fast. The story is about the thoughts of the characters as they get ready for the big rip approaching in months time.
 
2012-07-30 12:27:52 AM

Psychohazard: I've seen something similar to this already.

[i.ytimg.com image 480x360]


Well, it won't look like that or any of the images in TFA. Identifiable objects will lose their discrete cohesion uniformly and all at once, not break apart like broken eggs. It won't even be visible, because by that point light itself will disperse evenly in all directions at once at the same speed, making it impossible to see anything as it's coming apart. Never mind that your eyes, brain, and central nervous system -- your body and consciousness -- will be doing the same thing by that point. Everything, including time itself, will simply cease to be.
 
2012-07-30 12:28:21 AM
Wake up, Donnie.
 
2012-07-30 12:30:30 AM
pbfcomics.com
 
2012-07-30 12:41:45 AM

the cake is a pie: common sense is an oxymoron: ...Part 3 eliminates Pluto (its orbit crosses that of Neptune), Ceres (it's in the middle of the asteroid belt), and most TNOs regardless of size unless they happen to occupy "cleared" orbits (the ones discovered so far tend to have eccentric orbits, the ranges of which would be virtually impossible to clear of other objects)....

If Part 3 eliminates Pluto, shouldn't it also eliminate Neptune? Pluto couldn't clear Neptune out of its orbit, sure, but apparently Neptune couldn't clear Pluto either.


No. For a few reasons. First, Pluto is not a resident of Neptune's orbit, but a transient object that only crosses it from time to time. If that disqualifies Neptune, then the asteroids that cross our orbit disqualify us, and they clearly don't. Second, a planet does not need to clear its orbit. And a good thing, too, because no planet has a completely clean orbit, including ours. Under IAU rules, a planet only needs to be the dominant object in its immediate neighbourhood. Even if Pluto was a resident of Neptune's orbit, Neptune is many times larger: if Pluto got too close, Neptune's tidal forces would tear it apart. There remains some disagreement over particulars in scientific circles, but generally, a planet is the boss of its orbit and all other objects therein phear it. Trans-orbital objects, in and of themselves, do not disqualify planets; if they did, Jupiter, Earth, and Mars would also not qualify.
 
2012-07-30 12:44:02 AM

torusXL: Wow this happens to be the same as my favorite sci-fi short story by Stephen Baxter (takes a few second to redirect to the archives content).

In this story, scientists find out that dark energy is accelerating and fast. The story is about the thoughts of the characters as they get ready for the big rip approaching in months time.


I was thinking about that story through this whole thread, but couldn't remember enough to track it down. Thanks!
 
2012-07-30 12:46:46 AM
Previous estimates using a similar value had suggested that the Big Rip wouldn't happen until about 20-22 billion years from now, but after developing and applying a new technique, a Chinese team led by Zhang Xin and Li Miao are suggesting it could happen as early as 16.7 billion years from now

farking math: how does it work?

/16.7 is 75% of 22, not 75% less, you 'tard
 
2012-07-30 12:53:03 AM
If I had been 12 years old when I read this article, I wouldn't have slept well for a month. Jeez
 
2012-07-30 12:54:19 AM
Will there be a restaurant?
 
2012-07-30 01:13:41 AM

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: torusXL: Wow this happens to be the same as my favorite sci-fi short story by Stephen Baxter (takes a few second to redirect to the archives content).

In this story, scientists find out that dark energy is accelerating and fast. The story is about the thoughts of the characters as they get ready for the big rip approaching in months time.

I was thinking about that story through this whole thread, but couldn't remember enough to track it down. Thanks!


It gives me chills and an ominous feeling every single time I read it.
 
2012-07-30 01:25:41 AM

NFA: OBAMA!!!!!


www.examiner.com
 
2012-07-30 01:33:49 AM
The Universe is doomed and nothing we can do can change it. Ultimately, we have no future as a species.

Luckily, we will have wiped ourselves out (or been wiped out) long before then.
 
2012-07-30 01:54:20 AM
static.ddmcdn.com, www.xtimeline.com. static.ddmcdn.com
 
2012-07-30 01:57:19 AM
I blame France... it is responsible for every disaster humanity has had to suffer ever since it thought it was a pretty neat idea to support terrorists and create a corporate based Junta in the former British Colony of Virginia against the wishes of the majority of the population. and look what it created.
It is possible to pin two world wars and vietnam on the French not to mention some dire cooking. I am fairly sure they are behind the universe ending, probably as a punishment for Monty Python taking the piss out of their accents.
 
2012-07-30 02:15:14 AM

Omnivorous: Sounds like god's been playing dice with the universe all along.

16.7 billion years until it craps out.


Actually, it appears that when He created the universe 6,000 years ago, he used a 24-bit integer variable to store the year value in the Matrix's mainframe. N00b programming error.
 
Displayed 50 of 152 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report