Slashdot Mirror
The Death of A Universe
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.
So, if I'm alive in 5 billion years, I'll die in a fiery red version of our sun.
Doesn't this guy also go on to invent transparent aluminum then come back to the present and give away the formula to a fabricator in San Francisco?
"Computer! Oh computer?"
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
Oh, and Karl Rove has declared that entropy was created during the Clinton administration and a partisan Congress has prevented W from eliminating it.
Just the other day I was told I couldn't put "minimize entropy" as my job description where I work. Now look what's happening. I'm going to take this article to my boss and say "I told you so!"
I've found that my posts don't format quite right w/o a sig.
The reality is that we know so little about the universe that we can't even account for 90% of the gravity in our own galaxy. We call it dark matter because we can't see it anywhere but we need it to balance the visible mass against the visible size and rotation of the Milky Way.
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.
Surely in vain the net is spread in the sight of any bird -- Proverbs 1:17
I read somewhere recently (forgive me, I remember not where) of a new-ish theory that if the rate of expansion continues to increase that the universe will be ripped apart. that is to say, the rate of expansion would be so great that not only gravity would fail, but even strong and weak forces. All matter would be torn to shreds as it accelerated ever faster and faster.
IANAP, so anyone who is one, or studying to become one care to comment?
my pet machine
You down with Entropy? Yeah, you know me! (mp3 link)
The fact is, we are rather unsure of what will happen as the universe ends.
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. 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.
Down with Saudi Arabia!!!
You must be new here...
aaaahhh, forget it..
I, for one, welcome our grammar-challenged Slashdot Editor overlords.
Tired of being "punished" by the Slashdot $rtbl since 2002. I'm now over at http://soylentnews.org/ .
Interrestingly enough, Isaac Asimov already told us just that.
-- search the web
The answer is obvious.
Perhaps they will find a way to teleport into the new universe they create, each life form becoming truly a God.
Sorry, but my karma just ran over your dogma.
Announcer: "Today, in our studios, we have an Elk, I mean, an expert..."
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
The conclusions drawn by this article would appear to be fairly trivial at first. Basically energy can neither be created or destroyed and as the universe is expanding the overall energy density of the universe is faling. Less energy density means less luminosity.
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.
All that glitters has a high refractive index.
Just to drive the point home, I found this at www.dictionary.com: In writing, the form a is used before a word beginning with a consonant sound, regardless of its spelling (a frog, a university). The form an is used before a word beginning with a vowel sound (an orange, an hour).
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."
This guy must have been fun at parties.
Some people have a way with words, and some people, um, thingy.
... i thought the blackout was confined to new york, detroit and cleveland?
// "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"
"But language is an evolving invention of the people and not a set of rules defended by an elite crackerjack force of grammar gnomes."
Tell that to the French.
*rimshot*
--
"What do you want me to do? Whack a guy? Off a guy? Whack off a guy? Cause I'm married."
3D Printing Tips and Tricks at Zheng3.com
It's called "epenthesis"--the insertion of a sound becuase the language seems to dictate it.
:-P
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
The sun will swell to become a red giant until it engulfs Earth.
Actually, it's been recently shown (1, 2) that Earth could survive Sol's expansion, though it would be really frickin' hot!
-l
Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
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
I'm sure this document is very enlightening to those with the property background knowledge, but any paper with the phrase "according to conventional four-dimenional quantum field theory" (page 3) is a bit beyond my comprehension, and I'm not sure if it can be called easily digestable...
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.
Hemos,
You have embarrassed we for the last time. Get an box and clean out you locker.
Loves,
Taco
So long, michael. Don't let the door hit you...
It was a good paper, at the time. Since it's publication; however, we have some fairly good evidence that the universe isn't going to slow down and compact in a "crunch" The evidence shows that the universe is actually accelerating outward. Additional evidence, seems to indicate that there isn't enough mass to reverse the acceleration. Current accepted theory is that the universe will continue to expand and thermodynamically "die"
...who won the Nobel prize in 1974 for his work in discovering quasars at Cambridge University...
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.