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.

(Phys Org2)   "Cosmologists are puzzled: they predict that the Universe should not have lasted for more than a second. This startling conclusion is the result of combining the latest observations of the sky with the recent discovery of the Higgs boson"   (phys.org) divider line 132
    More: Interesting, Royal Astronomical Society, universe, Cosmic Inflation, King's College London, Particle Physics, Big Crunch, cosmologists, cosmology  
•       •       •

2633 clicks; posted to Geek » on 24 Jun 2014 at 11:56 AM (4 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-06-24 10:11:47 AM
Maybe it didn't last for more than a second.
 
2014-06-24 10:44:26 AM
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the observed results don't match the prediction.

I think that's when you're supposed to reevaluate the hypothesis.
 
2014-06-24 11:02:53 AM
Dear BICEP scientists:

Let it go.
 
2014-06-24 11:28:02 AM
That depends on how long a second is and how you define "time".
 
2014-06-24 11:30:07 AM
I shouldn't have met a woman who was willing to be impregnated by me, but it happened (twice!) so there you go.
 
2014-06-24 11:50:59 AM
I submitted this tomorrow will a better headline.
 
2014-06-24 11:59:46 AM

Gonz: I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the observed results don't match the prediction.

I think that's when you're supposed to reevaluate the hypothesis.


And you think they're not doing that?  That they came to this odd result and just went "well, the whole universe is a lie" and gave up?
 
2014-06-24 12:05:00 PM

Tr0mBoNe: That depends on how long a second is and how you define "time".


Traveler?
 
2014-06-24 12:05:05 PM
Maybe it is only lasting a second and all of our experiences and history fit within a tiny fraction of that second.
 
2014-06-24 12:05:12 PM
The universe is merely a fleeting idea in God's mind -- a pretty uncomfortable thought, particularly if you've just made a down payment on a house.
 
2014-06-24 12:05:19 PM
Therefore, Jesus.
 
2014-06-24 12:05:23 PM
Why do we care about what hairdressers think?
 
2014-06-24 12:13:24 PM
Wait, didn't they find out that BICEP had dirt on the lens? How does that square with this?

// or was that a different thing altogether?
 
2014-06-24 12:14:14 PM
Hey Felgraf, get in here -- What do they really mean by 'should not have lasted more than a second'?

In other words, what's the answer to the "maybe the clock is really sluggish" argument that's coming to everyone's mind in this thread, including mine? Is it as simple as "okay, we've picked *this* clock, so we'll go with it"?
 
2014-06-24 12:16:39 PM
The second, by modern definition, is "the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom" and since just after the Big Bang there were no cesium atoms yet it's impossible to accurately measure time since time during the early stages of the known universe has no meaning.
 
2014-06-24 12:17:04 PM
I think we may have to accept that the Universe is one of those things that just happens from time to time.
 
2014-06-24 12:17:39 PM

dennysgod: The second, by modern definition, is "the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom" and since just after the Big Bang there were no cesium atoms yet it's impossible to accurately measure time since time during the early stages of the known universe has no meaning.


Like how the Sun wasn't created until the fourth "day" in Genesis?
 
2014-06-24 12:17:57 PM
From my college physics level of understanding, the universe exploded in a violent nature to start off with. Such explosion wasn't "clean" like most of us understand. There was a vibration to it that should have fizzled out the explosion.

Think of it as using a bomb to blow out an oil well fire. The fire being the big bang, and the bomb being the vibrations that should have sucked the energy out of it.
 
2014-06-24 12:20:20 PM
Noted Cosmologist
encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com
 
2014-06-24 12:22:22 PM

sprawl15: The universe is merely a fleeting idea in God's mind -- a pretty uncomfortable thought, particularly if you've just made a down payment on a house.


"All matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves."

/Here's Tom with the weather.
//RIP William Melvin Hicks
 
2014-06-24 12:22:35 PM
Maybe it only did last for a second.  Maybe we are just the echo of what once was.
 
2014-06-24 12:24:42 PM

phaseolus: Hey Felgraf, get in here -- What do they really mean by 'should not have lasted more than a second'?

In other words, what's the answer to the "maybe the clock is really sluggish" argument that's coming to everyone's mind in this thread, including mine? Is it as simple as "okay, we've picked *this* clock, so we'll go with it"?


I AM SUMMONED AND APPEAR.

I am not *ENTIRELY* certain-I'm not a cosmologist and this isn't my field, but I *can* answer your secnd question more easily than the first:


Basically, they are saying "The state in which the universe is in is a stable state. It is not the lowest energy state, but it is a *stable* energy state, because it would take a X ammount of energy to kick us over the 'wall' and drop to a lower energy state where physical laws would be different/The higgs field would operate differently/etc."

Think of it like this: The universe is a pile of gasoline soaked rags and sticks, and if someone adds enoug energy (a lit match) it could kick us to a lower energy state. But that energy has to be *added*/reached first.


Their 'less than a second' bit is a bit of dramatization: What they mean is, according to other estimates/measurements, the universe *Already got the energy* that should be needed to kick us to that lower energy state, and that the energy was received very shortly after the universe began (That's where their 'Less than a second' bit came from.) . I.e., someone already tossed a lit match on the gasoline soaked rag of the universe shortly after it got dropped off.

But we didn't go up in a huge "FWOMP" of fire, so they're going "Ah, maybe we missed something!" Either some of the data is wrong (No one, in fact, threw a match) or there's another particle/variable involved that prevented the collapse (The rags are sitting in a pile of water, they're soaked with water, sitting in a vacuum, etc etc.)

I can try to clarify further if need be!
 
2014-06-24 12:26:36 PM
Well, we still don't properly understand the expanding force of dark energy, other than it exists.

Perhaps it played a bigger role earlier on?

//Oh who am I kidding, I can't do the math here.
 
2014-06-24 12:31:42 PM
Done in one
 
2014-06-24 12:32:10 PM
Dear, God. What could have happened?
 
2014-06-24 12:32:56 PM
"Atheists are the easiest people to troll." - God
 
2014-06-24 12:40:11 PM
I can tell you when and how the universe began, but now what fun would that be?

Study it out. You're getting warmer.
 
2014-06-24 12:47:49 PM

Felgraf: I AM SUMMONED AND APPEAR.


Thanks! Gotta run to a customer's plant now, but I'll reread & try to digest all that after work.
 
2014-06-24 12:48:01 PM
Or
www.smbc-comics.com
 
jlt
2014-06-24 12:48:27 PM

tricycleracer: Why do we care about what hairdressers think?


I read that headline as "cosmotologist" and had the same thought.  Except I was thinking make-up artists, not hairdressers.
 
2014-06-24 01:01:37 PM
Some time ago after the announcement from the LHC about discovery of the Higgs Boson, someone I know commented about how with this almost all the big questions had been answered. I know better than that. Answering the big questions usually just leads to bigger questions.
 
2014-06-24 01:06:06 PM

s2s2s2: "Atheists are the easiest people to troll." - God


"You don't exist." - Atheist
 
2014-06-24 01:06:12 PM

meat0918: Or
[www.smbc-comics.com image 540x1391]


Is it weird that my response to the possiblity that we're a simulation (which means the world above us is likely a simulation too) is generally along the lines of. "Ah, that presents an interesting future challenge for humanity, then. After all. Virtual Machines don't *ALWAYS* have rock-hard security, right?..."

/Is perhaps a weee bit crazy
//Pretty sure it's required to be a physics grad student, actually.
 
2014-06-24 01:07:16 PM
Zeus.
 
2014-06-24 01:09:47 PM
What's this, new discoveries and calculations causing astrophysicists to completely reconsider their understanding of the universe? How is this at all a surprise to anyone who has any clue what astrophysicists (and other theoretical scientists in general) actually do?
 
2014-06-24 01:10:40 PM
Okay, so things further away from us are more and more red-shifted, past the infra-red. This should mean that it reaches an asymptote approaching the speed of light. Lorentzian contraction means the universe of matter at that range has no length, from our perspective, and no time.

Not saying it's true, correct, or even testable, but it's an extension oh what we know so far. But if it's at all possible, we move at right angles in four dimensions to the far side of the universe.
 
2014-06-24 01:10:45 PM

Felgraf: meat0918: Or
[www.smbc-comics.com image 540x1391]

Is it weird that my response to the possiblity that we're a simulation (which means the world above us is likely a simulation too) is generally along the lines of. "Ah, that presents an interesting future challenge for humanity, then. After all. Virtual Machines don't *ALWAYS* have rock-hard security, right?..."

/Is perhaps a weee bit crazy
//Pretty sure it's required to be a physics grad student, actually.


Definitely.
 
2014-06-24 01:21:18 PM
So the universe was artificially created then?
 
2014-06-24 01:24:02 PM

s2s2s2: "Atheists are the easiest people to troll." - God


You know, I have no problem thinking that the Universe is a simulation and that some intelligent entity created the simulation. I think that the first part of that might one day even be a testable hypothesis. I'm even okay with calling that intelligent entity "God".

The problem is, that's never how religious people take it. It's always "scientists believe that the Universe may be a simulation - therefore Christianity is true."
 
2014-06-24 01:25:01 PM
Time is an illusion
 
2014-06-24 01:25:05 PM

Lord Dimwit: I think we may have to accept that the Universe is one of those things that just happens from time to time.


According to quantum theory, the odds of the Universe happening from nothing are not zero. It's extremely unlikely, but it's definitely not zero. And since there was no time at the Big Bang, that means it took no time for those not-zero odds to occur. Therefore everything happened instantly. And it only needed to happen once.

I've been trying to explain this to Creationists for the longest time.
 
2014-06-24 01:29:16 PM

Ishkur: Lord Dimwit: I think we may have to accept that the Universe is one of those things that just happens from time to time.

According to quantum theory, the odds of the Universe happening from nothing are not zero. It's extremely unlikely, but it's definitely not zero. And since there was no time at the Big Bang, that means it took no time for those not-zero odds to occur. Therefore everything happened instantly. And it only needed to happen once.

I've been trying to explain this to Creationists for the longest time.


thats_the_joke.jpg
 
2014-06-24 01:30:21 PM
Who care what they think? Just shut up and cut my hair already.
 
2014-06-24 01:31:44 PM

Felgraf: meat0918: Or
[www.smbc-comics.com image 540x1391]

Is it weird that my response to the possiblity that we're a simulation (which means the world above us is likely a simulation too) is generally along the lines of. "Ah, that presents an interesting future challenge for humanity, then. After all. Virtual Machines don't *ALWAYS* have rock-hard security, right?..."

/Is perhaps a weee bit crazy
//Pretty sure it's required to be a physics grad student, actually.



s3.amazonaws.com
 
2014-06-24 01:34:24 PM

Gulper Eel: I shouldn't have met a woman who was willing to be impregnated by me, but it happened (twice!) so there you go.


Is two women once or one woman twice? I'm confused
 
2014-06-24 01:36:24 PM

Ishkur: Lord Dimwit: I think we may have to accept that the Universe is one of those things that just happens from time to time.

According to quantum theory, the odds of the Universe happening from nothing are not zero. It's extremely unlikely, but it's definitely not zero. And since there was no time at the Big Bang, that means it took no time for those not-zero odds to occur. Therefore everything happened instantly. And it only needed to happen once.

I've been trying to explain this to Creationists for the longest time.


Eh, you could call me a "Creationist" in that I believe the Universe might have had an intelligent cause behind it (I like the simulation argument, specifically). The difference is, I accept that my opinion is just that - an opinion - and not falsifiable and not science. (I do think that one day we might have some evidence that we are living in a simulation, which would be neat.)

Saying "quantum theory" still implies that the rules existed, and I wonder why the rules are the way they are. I realize that Occam's Razor doesn't require a creator in that case (the rules could "just be" in the same way a creator would "just be"), but it's a question for which I would like a "satisfying" answer. The worst part about the Universe is that it doesn't seem to want to give me any satisfying answers. :)
 
2014-06-24 01:39:34 PM

Lord Dimwit: Ishkur: Lord Dimwit: I think we may have to accept that the Universe is one of those things that just happens from time to time.

According to quantum theory, the odds of the Universe happening from nothing are not zero. It's extremely unlikely, but it's definitely not zero. And since there was no time at the Big Bang, that means it took no time for those not-zero odds to occur. Therefore everything happened instantly. And it only needed to happen once.

I've been trying to explain this to Creationists for the longest time.

Eh, you could call me a "Creationist" in that I believe the Universe might have had an intelligent cause behind it (I like the simulation argument, specifically). The difference is, I accept that my opinion is just that - an opinion - and not falsifiable and not science. (I do think that one day we might have some evidence that we are living in a simulation, which would be neat.)

Saying "quantum theory" still implies that the rules existed, and I wonder why the rules are the way they are. I realize that Occam's Razor doesn't require a creator in that case (the rules could "just be" in the same way a creator would "just be"), but it's a question for which I would like a "satisfying" answer. The worst part about the Universe is that it doesn't seem to want to give me any satisfying answers. :)


You and I share a common belief. Sounds silly, but I got mine from the years of watching Stargate, I really would have liked to have seen the answer to the intelligence prior to the start of the universe finished off.
 
2014-06-24 01:40:34 PM
Maybe the sky is blue because we live in the eye of a giant named Macomber.
 
2014-06-24 01:41:41 PM

Felgraf: meat0918: Or
[www.smbc-comics.com image 540x1391]

Is it weird that my response to the possiblity that we're a simulation (which means the world above us is likely a simulation too) is generally along the lines of. "Ah, that presents an interesting future challenge for humanity, then. After all. Virtual Machines don't *ALWAYS* have rock-hard security, right?..."

/Is perhaps a weee bit crazy
//Pretty sure it's required to be a physics grad student, actually.


The simulation argument makes a lot of sense to me. I'm genuinely curious to see if we discover some evidence pointing to a simulation - regular anisotropy in the large scale structure of the Universe would be a good starting point, although to be fair I consider the speed of light, absolute zero, and the observer effect in quantum mechanics to be good starting points as well.

(The observer effect I think is particularly fun to think about from a perspective of "don't devote a lot of power to simulating something that doesn't have an agent observing it at the moment", with Einstein's "spooky action at a distance" being the simulation's attempt to keep a globally consistent view by going back and modifying the spins of the observed particles under the hood. That doesn't violate Bell's theorem if the modification truly happens "under the hood" - i.e. in the universe running the simulation, not our universe.)
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2014-06-24 01:42:37 PM
See "An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge."
 
Displayed 50 of 132 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report