Slashdot Mirror
New Universes Will be Born from Ours
David Shiga writes "What gruesome fate awaits our universe? Some physicists have argued that it is doomed to be ripped apart by runaway dark energy, while others think it is bouncing through an endless series of big bangs and big crunches. Now, scientists have combined these two ideas to create another option, in which our universe ultimately shatters into billions of pieces. Each shard would then subsequently grow into a whole new universe. The model could solve the mystery of why our early universe was surprisingly well ordered."
Now it sounds like these guys aren't even trying anymore. I could've sworn I saw this in an episode of Star Trek.
. . . witty, and profound, but the announcement that the free bagels and donuts we get every Friday have arrived.
Just think, if only one percent of those billions of new universes repeat our time-stream, this joyous moment will be repeated . . .
whoa, they maple bars this morning. I'm out of here. Priorities . . .
The Last Question. htm
http://infohost.nmt.edu/~mlindsey/asimov/question
Just ask the good Jedi how they feel about "Balance" now...
... is there something somewhere else blowing?
And no, that wasn't a Spaceballs reference!
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
Are we back to the Steady State Theory already?
Baby come back!! No more dark matter - I promise you a Big Bang this time!
I propose that the universe is actually a cheap science kit awaiting purchase on the shelf of a hyper-dimensional Toys-R-Us. I could probably prove it too if I had the funding...
Nothing witty
Rev 21:1, "And I saw a new heaven and a new earth and the first heaven and the first earth had passed away."
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
I heard Google is still beta testing them out.
The universe is ending, get to the beer store before it closes! Actually, this theory may be in fact true, however it falls under the category of one that can never be proven fully because the universe has to end to really find out if the models were correct. You can tweak models. Reality is a little different. Sounds like a good experiment for the new satellite, or at the very least, a good source of grant money for the researchers.
Big energy and runaway bangs with Dark Crunches? Sounds like a cereal to me.
The greatest revenge in life is massive success.
Yeah those guys over at Dotslash are ALWAYS posting all kinds of wild theories.
To join the brimming river,
For men may come and men may go,
But I go on forever."
from THE BROOK ,
by: Alfred Tennyson (1809-1892
http://www.poetry-archive.com/t/the_brook.html
Cragen
Can we leave them our debts?
DJCC
We'll stick around to stay in our little galaxy's lives, as we want to pass on our knowledge and provide care for them. That and the threat of paying child support.
In Soviet Russia, dots slash you!
I maple bar in the morning too!
(Heh. Captcha is "imminent.")
There has been a lot of research showing that Black Holes themselves are essentially fundamental particles. Coupled with (even if string theory isn't true the fundamental particle geometry is interesting) two concepts of measuring distance. Such that when one passes the Plank Length the 'easy' way of measuring distance becomes hard and measures the reciprocal instead, while the previous hard way becomes easy. Then throw into all of this the notion that we are all moving through space-time at constant velocity (light speed - this is why when you travel faster through space time slows down. so no-one really understands what time is, or how many dimensions (of 11, say) are time, or whether they are essentially different from space, mathematically, physically or philosophically.
So yeah, i'm just about willing to believe anything right now.
Prominent bizarro physicists believe the new universe will be inverse of our own, controlled by the indigent, and known as the hobo-verse. This new hobo-verse will be controlled by a singular omnipotent box car hobo named "Klackity Klack." Also, it will smell like pee.
"Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
Cool pictures of the production at:
http://physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=56
ALL TIED UP & STRUNG ALONG, a movie about String Theorists and their expansive theories which extend human ignorance, pomposity, and frailty into higher dimensions, is set to start filming this fall. Jessica Alba, John Cleese, Eugene Levie, Jackie Chan, and David Duchovney of X-files fame have all signed on to the $700 million Hollywood project, which is still cheaper than String Theory itself, and will likely displace less physicists from the academy.
"As contemporary physics is about money, hype, mythology, and chicks," Ed Witten explained from his offices at the Princeton Institute for Advanced Study, "The next logical step was Hollywood, although I thought Burt Reynolds should play me instead of Eugene Levy."
Brian Greene, the famous String Theorist who will be played by David "the truth is out there" Duchovney, explained the plot: "String theory's muddled, contorted theories that lack postulates, laws, and experimentally-verified equations have Einstein spinning so fast in his grave that it creates a black hole. In order to save the world, we String Theorists have to stop reformulating String Theory faster than the speed of light. We are called upon to stop violating the conservation of energy by mining higher dimensions to publish more BS than can accounted for with the Big Bang alone, and I win the Nobel prize for showing that M-Theory is in fact the dark matter it has been searching for."
Greene continues: "At first my character is reluctant to stop theorizing and start postulating, but when my love interest Jessica Alba is sucked into the black hole, I search my soul and find Paul Davies there, played by John Cleese. I ask him what he's doing in my soul, and he explains that the answer is contained in the mind of God, which only he is privy too, but for a small fee, some tax and tuition dollars, a couple grants here and there, and an all-expense-paid book tour with stops in Zurich and Honolulu, he can let me in on it. And he shows me God in all her greater glory, as he points out that we can make more money in Hollywood than writing coffee-table books that recycle Einstein, Bohr, Dirac, Feynman, and Wheeler. I am quickly converted, and I agree to turn my back on String Theory's hoax and save Jessica Alba."
But it's not that easy, as standing in Greene's way is Michio "king of pop-theory-hipster-irony-the-theory-of-everything- or-anything-made-
you-read-this" Kaku, played by Jackie Chan. Kaku beats the crap out of Greene for alomst blowing the "ironic" pretense his salary, benefits, and all-expense paid trips depend on. "WE MUST HOLD BACK THE YOUNG SCIENTISTS WITH OUR NON-THEORIES!! WE MUST FILL THE ACADEMY WITH THE POMO DARK MATTER THAT IS STRING THEORY TO KEEP OUR UNIVERSE FROM FLYING APART, OUR PYRAMID SCHEMES FROM TOPPLING, AND OUR PERPETUAL-MOTION NSF MONEY MACHINE FROM STOPPING!!" Kaku argues as he delivers a flying back-kick, "There can be ony ONE! I WILL be String Theory's GODFATHER as referenced on my web page!! I have better hair!"
But Greene fights back as he signs his seventeenth book deal to make the hand-waving incoherence of String Theory accessible to the South Park generation, senior citizens, and starving chirldren around the world. "Kaku! Kaku! (pronounced Ka-Kaw! Ka-Kaw! like Owen Wilson did in Bottle Rocket)," Greene shouts. "It is theoretically impossible to build a coffee tables strong enough to support any more coffee-table physics books!!!"
"Time travel is also theoretically impossible, but there's a helluva lot more money for us in flushing physics down a wormhole. Nobody knows what the #&#%&$ M stands for in M theory ya hand-waving, TV-hogging crank!!! Get it?? Ha Ha Ha! We're laughing at the public! We're the insider pomo hipsters! Get with the gangsta-wanksta-pranksta CRANKSTER bling-bling program!!"
How does it all end? Does physics go bankrupt
Personally, I always felt there had to be something beyond the end of the universe. On the other hand, there has to be an end, so we have a paradox that I really don't think has been explored (except, maybe, in Star Trek...)
I'm a physics teacher currently teaching about the Big Bang and possible ends of the Universe. I'm just wondering if there are any research physicists in the room who could tell me which theory of the end of the Universe has the most physical evidence to support it at the current time.
Thank you,
-CGP
well ordered is a matter of opinion. let's not base theories of creation off of slippery ones like that ;)
Yeah, except this claim is apparently testable. You know, testing an idea to see whether it actually works? That thing religions can't do?
From the article:
"The theory will be put to the test when the European Space Agency's Planck satellite is launched in July 2008. The satellite will measure properties related to the pressure and density of dark energy that will distinguish the new model from the standard big bang picture, says Frampton."
You frequently get the question "Why is the universe {whatever}?" or "In order to support human life, the universe had to be {whatever}."
This is frequently used to support the idea of divine intervention.
If you ask such a question or make such an observation, you have to remember:
The fact that we are here to observe it greatly restricts the possibilities, so what seems like "long odds" isn't long odds after all.
To put it another way:
If you play in the Superbowl and win, and your friends congratulate you, you don't say "What are the odds of my friends congratulating me for winning the Superbowl? There are 300,000,000 million Americans and only a few dozen have friends who congratulated them for winning the 2007 Super Bowl. That is rare, this is proof of divine intervention in my life."
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
and all other high-level alternative cosmological theories
it's nothing but mythology with a veneer of high level math that supposes to give it respectability. it doesn't. its entertianing and creative, but ultimately proofless. a lot of the big bang, the expanding universe, etc., can be explained with simple local variation in time/ space
i'm sorry but string theory, other high level theories of everything: in my mind they are as convincing as peter pan or lord of the rings or harry potter. very entertaining, but ultimately just tall tales
the only people who have a convincing cosmology/ creation theory to me is from the jains, the ancient religious sect in india, and they figured it out thousands of years ago:
the universe was never created, nor will it ever cease to exist. it's constant. any variation we see around us is not proof of the big bang, but merely large scale contraction and expansion in endless variety like the surface of the sea
to me, that is the ultimate truth, because in my mind, all other creation theories, with their shocking plot twists and incendiary catalclysms, stinks of the very human need to create meaning where there isn't necessarily any meaning, to create drama where nothing says there needs to be drama, to impart deeply rooted biological impressions of birth and death, on a scale that has no such indications
in other words, the most profound truth is also the most mundane
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I, for one, am frightened that the universe might have evolve life, but might never bear a Jesus or Mohammed. :(
Brilliant
Can I ask, who ties your shoelaces in the morning?
Dyslexic much?
./ = /. or Slashdot
Spaghetti Flying Monster = Flying Spaghetti Monster, or FSM
One of the best sci-fi stories ever. Kudos for the link.
There are many tongues to talk, and but few heads to think. -Victor Hugo
That is one of my favorite all time stories.. thanks for posting, I havent read it in years.
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a skull.
I think the work being referred to may be in this paper, in which the universes are "causal patches" which are disconnected from each other causally by the Big Rip.
Existence is such an strange thing, guess I'll find out when I die.
\(^o^)/
The reasoning behind the shattering is due to the visitation of a Stranger from another land, heeding the call of Lord British. The Stranger overcame many perils, finally meeting the evil Mondain in single combat, and shattering the Gem of Immortality into a million shards of which we now speak.
Since this time, these myriad shards have been visited by other similar life forms, where they pay exhorbitant fees to engage in lewd behavior, server lag, and PKing.
Nice way to ruin it for the unitiated.
There are many tongues to talk, and but few heads to think. -Victor Hugo
I was told that story by a friend. Quite interesting. It was the shortened version (as in a 5 minute telling), but I think I got everything.
I do wonder though: How did the very first one occur? If this universe is from the last one, then there must have been a first one somewhere.
Would you kindly mod me +1 insightful?
I call it the "Big Burrito" theory.
Details forthcoming after lunch....
Troll or not, I laughed.
The idea is called Kabbalah. It's nothing new.
Maybe the first one IS the last one. You may scoff at the notion. But does the Earth have a beginning and an end?
There are many tongues to talk, and but few heads to think. -Victor Hugo
Scientific article is not a scientific paper. IT was a very high level description of a model written by somebody who might no what there doing, but probably doesn't.
IT is just a model, when they lok at it closer they will find that it doesn't account for some thing and discard it, or they will be able to use it to make predection, it which case it won't be discarded unless something better comes along.
FSM is a modern day version of the teapot analogy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
local variation in expansion/ contraction, like the surface of a choppy windy day on the open ocean, on a tremendous scale
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
it's just local variation in expansion/ contraction, like the surface of a choppy windy day on the open ocean, but on an extremely huge scale of time and space
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
> The model could solve the mystery of why our early universe was surprisingly well ordered.
Not really - you've just pushed the problem back one level. Where did the well-ordered universe shards that made this universe come from? It can't be "turtles all the way down"
...and Richard Garriot will become king, and his kingdom will be named Britannia, and his world will be called Sosaria. Hi, I'm a priest of the Temple of Mondain.
If I only had a moose...
But he is wrong in the essay...
Asimov writes:
"I get it," said Adell. "Don't shout. When the sun is done, the other stars will be gone, too."
100% incorrect. Stars are born right now that will last billions of years longer than the sun. Stars don't die out all at the same time.
If you mod me down, I *will* introduce you to my sister!
Stars are born right now that will last billions of years longer than the sun. Stars don't die out all at the same time.
But he said forever.
From WordNet (r) 1.6 [wn]:
universe
n 1: everything that exists anywhere;
Could someone please explain how you would have multiple copies of something that "exists everywhere?"
If you define a different universe as being physically distinct from ours, then yes;
If parts of our universe started out in the same singularity as us but are now outside of our light-cone, then they are in effect physically separate from us, so that places them in a different universe, doesn't it? If they are outside our light-cone, and can no longer affect us, then they are not in our universe anymore but since they still exist, I think you have to consider them as being in a different universe.
Of course it means they have to be outside of our entire universe's light-cone...
I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
If the light and heavy elements from the remnants of a nova coalesced at some time into the planet we live on now, then it might reasonably be said to have a beginning. Which is pretty deep.
Baby universes? Let's name one "Bob"!
What, our universe gives its life up so another can be born, and we don't even get to name it?
Good judgment comes from experience.
Experience comes from bad judgment.
There is always a runaway something that will kill us all.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Syntax
A man staring at his equations
said that the universe had a beginning.
There had been an explosion, he said.
A bang of bangs, and the universe was born.
And it is expanding, he said.
He had even calculated the length of its life:
ten billion revolutions of the earth around the sun.
The entire globe cheered;
They found his calculations to be science.
None thought that by proposing that the universe began,
the man had merely mirrored the syntax of his mother tongue;
a syntax which demands beginnings, like birth,
and developments, like maturation,
and ends, like death, as statements of facts.
The universe began,
and it is getting old, the man assured us,
and it will die, like all things die,
like he himself died after confirming mathematically
the syntax of his mother tongue.
The Other Syntax
Did the universe really begin?
Is the theory of the big bang true?
These are not questions, though they sound like they are.
Is the syntax that requires beginnings, developments
and ends as statements of fact the only syntax that exists?
That's the real question.
There are other syntaxes.
There is one, for example, which demands that varieties
of intensity be taken as facts.
In that syntax nothing begins and nothing ends;
thus birth is not a clean, clear-cut event,
but a specific type of intensity,
and so is maturation, and so is death.
A man of that syntax, looking over his equations, finds that
he has calculated enough varieties of intensity
to say with authority
that the universe never began
and will never end,
but that it has gone, and is going now, and will go
through endless fluctuations of intensity.
That man could very well conclude that the universe itself
is the chariot of intensity
and that one can board it
to journey through changes without end.
He will conclude all that, and much more,
perhaps without ever realizing
that he is merely confirming
the syntax of his mother tongue.
CS majors know the time/space tradeoff, but they never get taught the 3rd, crucial, tradeoff of the set: comprehension!
When the energy state of all strings is zero, the Universe will be empty. No big crunch. No big rip. Just heat-death. I'm so certain of it, I'll bet my paycheck on it - but good luck collecting on the bet!
All this string theory parallel universe type of crap?
If it's not, it's really just philosophy. The universe could be made up of interdimensional farts. Whatever.
Is there an actual field of science that tries to quantify and observe this stuff, or is it just people sitting around going "DUUUUUDE... like, what if the universe explodes into A MILLION UNIVERSES!"
I guess the title pHd make your daydreams more important than those of any other stoner.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
feeling a little bitter about something?
the universe is fun place. To quote David Holmes, "Don't Die Just Yet!"
CS majors know the time/space tradeoff, but they never get taught the 3rd, crucial, tradeoff of the set: comprehension!
What fate awaits... maybe Leprechaun Universe or Pirate Universe.
I meant in more of a physical/geographical sense. As in, standing on the surface of a sphere. Two dimensions actually in a three dimensional space. Which is an appropriate analogy because we perceive life through three dimensions, but the universe is made up of more. Yes, I know that time and space are part of the same thing, but I think you can get my point. From our point of view it appears that the universe has to have a beginning and an end(both in time and space), because the concept that it doesn't is hard for our minds to grasp.
There are many tongues to talk, and but few heads to think. -Victor Hugo
OK, first I have to get past the oxymoronic idea of multiple universes.
:-).
But let's say this is right and universes form from the shards of a previously exploded universe. Over time universes which did this well would be selected for. Maybe universes capable of evolving life both intelligent and crazy enough to go hacking around at the subatomic level reproduce better because they get blowed up real good
This sig does not contain any SCO code.
Are you sure about that?
Your sig contains the word "This", which is an obvious obfuscation of "this", which is a C++ keyword.
And, according to Darl McBride, SCO owns C++.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Hopefully in at least one of them, people won't kill each other over political or religious ideology. Bring on the cataclysm, whatever comes next is sure to be better.
James Blish, call your office.
I was told that story by a friend. Quite interesting. It was the shortened version (as in a 5 minute telling), but I think I got everything.
I do wonder though: How did the very first one occur? If this universe is from the last one, then there must have been a first one somewhere.
No, there doesn't have to be a first one. It's perfectly possible for there to have been an infinite series of previous ones.
In fact, if you accept that something can't come from nothing, then the very notion of a first one at all is absurd. Where did THAT come from?
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
They believe that some can obtain God status and then rule their own universe, which would match up to this theory, i guess South Park was right in their movie after all...
Asimov writes: "I get it," said Adell. "Don't shout. When the sun is done, the other stars will be gone, too." 100% incorrect. Stars are born right now that will last billions of years longer than the sun. Stars don't die out all at the same time.
It sounds like Adell is wrong, not Asimov.
I'm just curious. If the 4th dimension is constantly expanding, how have you defined the rate of expansion? Then again, you are just a troll...
The correct analogy would involve you having no idea whether other Americans exist, but thinking: "Hmm, the more Americans there were, the lower the likelihood of intelligent design would be."
You may be on to something there...
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
the uniformity of the background radiation and the uniformity of the red shift are observations that don't contradict me, nor do they support you. on the scale we are talking, such large expanses of time and space, you can't with certainty say that what you observe supports the existence of the big bang with any more certainty than i can say it disproves it. there are too many unknown variables about what we don't know on these time/ space scales at work here for you to say you can stand firmly with two feet with the "proof" you have
it's a dead heat. there is no proof either way. and as such, we are left with only one guiding principle:
occam's razor
when you hear hoofbeats, don't think of zebras
when you hear hoofbeats, it's probably just horses. why do you insist it should be zebras?
the exotic is the exotic for a reason: it's less likely, because its more complicated for the collusion of the events that make the improbable possible to occur. in other words, i do not have any more faith in my uniform across all time and space model... i can't. the proof isn't there for me. but by the same token, where does the certainty in your model come from? a model that is less likely, because its more complicated
furthermore, your model speaks of anthropomorphic prejudice. whatever you think is being supported by the obervations about redshift and COBE's findings is one out of thousands of interpretations, but you seem to have latched onto the most dramatic old testament creationistic model, with such an overly certain fervor that it belies a cultural/ theological/ anthropomorphic prejudice on your part. the big bang has been accepted and enshrined for no other reason than that the western culture that gave birth to hubble, einstein, etc. is firmly entrenched in old testament teachings for generations about a creation myth that... bears strong resemblance to the big bang. nice coincidence huh?
there are thousands of possible reasons for what we see. but why is the big bang treated with such certainty? this is suspect to me
occam's razor defeats you: the boring and mundane is more likely than the exotic. i don't have more proof than you to support the mundane model i am suggesting. but at least i realize that. big bang supporters don't seem to understand that the leap from what we see: "abc" to what it means: "xyz", has a lot of "defghi...stuvw" in between of alternative reasons, less exotic more mundane reasons, that gets conveniently skipped over when thinking critically about the big bang model
you've latched onto the exotic, and not allowed for the natural variety of less dramatic interpretations to come to fruition in your mind
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Thor?
Anansi?
Walo?
Sivan?
Toci?
Abraham?
Zoraoster?
Esus?
Yahweh?
Bendis?
Loko?
etc
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deities
i think occam's razor stands against big bang, not support it. a constant endless across time/ space model, with simple variations in expansion/ contraction something like the surface of a choppy day on the ocean seems less dramatic to me
in other words, using your rationale, i see the big bang as suspect, the more bizarre answer, not the simpler one
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
In Hindu cosmology a universe endures for about 4,320,000,000 years (one day of Brahma or kalpa) and is then destroyed by fire or water. At his point, Brahma rests for one night, just as long as the day. This process, named pralaya, repeats for such 100 years, period that represents Brahma's lifespan.
After Brahma's "death", it is necessary that another 100 of his years pass until he is reborn and the whole creation begins anew. This process is repeated again and again, forever.
Brahma's life is divided in one thousand cycles (Maha Yuga, or the Great Year). Maha Yuga, during which the human race appears and then disappears, has 71 divisions, each made of 14 Manvantara (1000) years. Each Maha Yuga lasts for 4,320,000 years. Manvantara is Manu's cycle, the one who gives birth and govern human race.
This is a procrastinator's dream. Now I don't have to do squat, some other universe will do it for me!
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
Ehm yeh, but there are only 2 ways to go:
Either something can come from nothing (good luck with proving that) or something comes from something (good luck proving that too). And in the latter case, if something is only possible from something then something can't exist; it's a paradox.
somebodygotchocolateinmypeanutbuttersomebodygotpea nutbutteronmychocolate
I call it the Unified Reese's Cup Theory of the Universe
Slightly OT, but it's funny how Asimov used the idea of MULTIVAC in different ways, e.g. The Last Question vs. The Machine that Won the War.
How is this going to solve anything? It may be going through big bang cycles, it may explode into a bajillion pieces, it may coalesce into a giant Windows logo. We don't know and nothing about these theories are going to solve anything.
I see no problem with a fourth dimension expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions.
Here's how we can define it:
"The fourth dimension is expanding rleative to the three spatial dimensions."
What laws or axioms or postulates has the above statement violated?
None that I can see.
What the author seems to be saying is that time is an emergent property of this underlying physical reality, which they then use to unify seemingly disparate physical phenomena.
"The fourth dimension is expanding rleative to the three spatial dimensions."
This would explain why everything propagates through space-time at the velocity c--this never changes.
It's been speculated that the universe will reach it's low energy state after 10^1000 years.
I've heard the layman's description that quantum physics suggests that some really remarkable things can happen (my hand passing through a wall), but that the probability of that happening is infinitesmally small.
Maybe I'm mixing my theories, but if the universe reaches heat death and just coasts effectively forever, then wouldn't the probability of a new universe being created be 1? Highly unlikely, but given enough time, anything can happen...
sounds like the universe is just another one of those damn dandelions in my yard: it turns white, pops, and sends the seeds around to invest my yard with more of their damn yellow Somethingness on my perfect bed of green Nothingness. -- old man Void
random underscore blankspace at ya know hoo dot comedy.
I fixed your typo for ewe.
all the way down ;-)
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I'm sorry that I didn't get to read your whole post. The guy in the cube next to me let out his own version of the "Big Rip" and so I just needed to go get some air...
Brawndo: It's what plants crave!
...so this theory seems to achieve nothing.
For example, if I cut an object in two, each part has half the entropy of its parent. But they're also only half as big, so my cutting doesn't affect the "entropy state" of the system. The two halves don't instantaneously get cooler for example.
In the theory, each little universe-let has less entropy, but also proportionally less mass and energy. So it cancels out and there's no "low entropy state".
Reduce, reuse, cycle
it's turtles, all the way down
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Doesn't matter how many times the universe blows up and recombines into smaller universes (thus explaining the remarkable order), there will still be condescending egoists who deny that a person who believes in God can be rational, scientific, and clear-headed.
This new theory is just like any of the other "parallel universe" hypotheses in that it doesn't actually solve the origin question, it just rephrases another old one just because there are some neat mathematics that fall out of it.
When geometers came up with curved ways to define straight lines, they called it "hyperbolic geometry" meaning approximately "unnecessary but still pretty cool geometry." It is used to study all kinds of things and define new and interesting fields of mathematics. If there was a word for "truly useless" that we could put in front of this form of astrophysics, we should find it and apply it generously until an interesting new field of astrophysical research falls out of this sort of wild speculation.
Until then, it will get constantly foisted upon slackers reading slashdot at work along with 2-year-old news and reposts of technology blogs. Welcome to the anti-social.
Now is the time for these people to make theories that give them media/press attention, because there is no way those theories could ever been proven, even if they are indeed true.
You can hypothesis out the arse about a neverending birth sequence of an infinite number of alternate universes (universi?) but since we'll more than likely not be able to explore those theories before the fall of mankind (hey, between global warming and American Idol, this planet isn't going to last too much longer!), so we might as well make up some really extraordinary shit.
"Hey guys, I have the answer. A cosmic balloon containing our universe is about to burst, creating a pletora of new universes (multiverse? can we still call them universe if there's more than one?) each to suffer the same fate?" Sounds a lot like dividing cells of a fetus.
Maybe all these universes splitting off will make a giant Voltron or Tranzor-Z that we can
use to battle all the other multiverses for inter-stellar domination!!!
"So that means, that our universe can be one tiny cell in the fingernail of some other giant being" (name that movie?)
C'mon people, making shit up is fun!
And they said zombies weren't real!
"It's perfectly possible for there to have been an infinite series of previous ones."
On the other hand an infinite sequence can have a begining and an end. An ancient Greek philospher (too lazy to Google his name) used the example of a falling object. If an object can fall half a distance, then half of that, then half of that, ad infinitum, then how does it ever reach the ground? It should fall forever yet it doesn't.
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
Sounds like the Worm and the sand trout, and the waking dream of the God Emperor. One formed shatters and scatters to form others which also form more unending.
There are no other universe, and there never can be.
By definition.
The word universe literally means "one all" or "one everything". This is inherently singular and refers to absolutely all that ever was, all that is, all that ever will be, and all possibilities in every configuration, past, present, future, as well as anything that might be beyond the notion of time itself. It is, quite literally _EVERYTHING_, visible and invisible, real and imagined, possible and impossible.
That is, of course, not to suggest that what we might perceive or ever be capable of perceiving of the universe is all that there ever will be, and it may be fair to say that what we could potentially perceive of from the universe may in fact exist or could 'someday' (as far as the notion of time makes sense outside of the concept that we perceive it as) exist in multiplicity. But the term universe itself conveys an intrinsically singular concept, encompassing absolutely everything, even alternate "realities". It's really what the word was designed to mean, and limiting its scope diminishes the concept that it conveys.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Try reading further in the story. Closer to the end, it states quite explictly, that new stars had been created by both artificial and natural processes.
your question neither supports/ detracts from the big bang, nor supports/ detracts from the constant model
in the span of times and space we are talking about, too much is unknown that is at work. if you say it disproves the constant model, then i ask: how did the big bang ever get started when gravity is such a big issue? you probably have an answer to that if your faith is in the big bang model
and it all lies on a pile of sand
the simplest, most honest answer to your question is: "i don't know"
and beware anyone who says they do know. they don't
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
No, an infinite sequence can't have both a beginning and an end. You're thinking of Zeno's Paradox, and that sequence has no end. It does, however, have a limit, which is not the same thing.
...following the principles of Heisenburger's Uncertain Cat...
For every bell that rings, a new universe is born.
I may not be recalling that quote correctly.
On the other hand an infinite sequence can have a begining and an end. An ancient Greek philospher (too lazy to Google his name) used the example of a falling object. If an object can fall half a distance, then half of that, then half of that, ad infinitum, then how does it ever reach the ground? It should fall forever yet it doesn't.
The problem with that example is that it neglects the fact that the smaller the distance, the faster its passed. As distance approaches 0, so does the time it takes to pass it. So assuming there is an infinite number of seperate segments, each segment is passed at infinite speed. But I really don't see that as an infinite sequence anyway.
Doesn't the current evidence show that all objects are moving away from the center of the universe at a rate of speed which is increasing, rather than decreasing? If so, then doesn't this mean that the universe will never do the "big crunch"?
In the proto-indo-european language, "God" simply meant "Shut up". Of course that's a joke. But think about it.
Do not trust this signature.
I never could figure that Trinity thing out.
Bury this guy. He;s been pasting it in physics related articles. He answers questions by pasting some more.
As if scientists know anything and have ever tried. It's nothing but a cluster fuck of toddler level guesses.
Why does there have to be an end? Why cant it be turtles all the way down?
We as humans have to shoehorn the universe into our concept of birth, life, and death.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
And this is how many years after Kant died?
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
Hmm, you mean it is actually possible to test if the theory predicting major bombing of the Universe is correct? From what I see you are predicting what will happen with new Spaghetti Flying satellite.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
Awesome reading. Thank you.
Those who believe you can mix together science and religion definitely do not know their religion well as what science is.
Religion it its principle is based in the belief of Unseen. Unseen as unseen at any wavelength of radiation related to any fundamental physical force.
Science on the contrary deals only with the events that could be seen, that is manifest themselves materially on a regular basis.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
I apologize for insulting your deity.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
Even if it was the case that our Universe will shatter to produce new ones, the proton decay will stop this continuous propagation in something like 10^35 years.
You can't handle the truth.
Also, if you accept that something can't come from nothing, then the notion that there's an infinite series of previous universes is also absurd. If they can't be created out of nothing, then they couldn't have existed.
Now, we can either state essentially the same facts and ask the same questions over and over in our own little infinite sequence (that had a start), or we can just say "We don't know," which is the truth.
Would you kindly mod me +1 insightful?
Criticizing string theology will get you banned by the groupthinkers.
"It must be so--for the greater good of physics, the individual physicist, and thus physics, must be sacrificed."
So many live so blind to the irony here.
Of course it means they have to be outside of our entire universe's light-cone...
The universes are probably the same if one particle is in another's light cone which is in another's light cone, and so on like stepping stone. Also, perhaps if you can build an EPR bridge from point A to point B.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
So basically I am to get in touch with my dark matter, explode in a million bright but brief glittering shards and then go quickly, fading away?
Like hell I will. If quantum theorems are ever outlawed you'll have to pry mine from my cold, dead hands.
Not the adjective 'hyperbolic' as in 'exaggerated'. It's called 'hyperbolic' cause it's related to hyperbolas.
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
http://tenthdimension.com/medialinks.php *it's a simple flash movie demonstrating how the universe(s)/Universe has ten dimensions
The outcome of any serious research can only be to make two questions grow where only one grew before. - Thorstein
From the winky pedia entry:--Anne Elk (Miss)
Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
Quantum Mechanics is the most thoroughly tested and successful theory of the universe. While yes, it doesn't extend to large scales (or mesh with gravity all that well), it is the most successful theory.
While General Relativity is generally considered to be a very accurate theory, there have been papers proposing that higher order terms are necessary to accurately describe the universe we live in. I believe this partially results from a simplifying assumption made in the derivation of the Einstein Field Equations (via one of the methods) where you ignore higher order terms to simplify the derivations. AFAIK, there is not physical basis for ignoring these terms, other than they contribute in smallish ways and make the derivation more complicated.
somebody who might no what there doing
..." or "... people who might know what they're doing, but probably don't".)
"know", "they're". (To be grammatically correct, it should be "... somebody who might know what he's/she's doing
etc., etc.
...will be born off my ass.
Microsoft Vista.
Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
"The model could solve the mystery of why our early universe was surprisingly well ordered."
Wow. reaching kind of hard there. Must..... not....... admit........ possibility........ of........ a....... creator.
Gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!
and their heads-a-splode
jason
do wonder though: How did the very first one occur? If this universe is from the last one, then there must have been a first one somewhere.
Whaa? That makes no sense. Define a function F on the integers such that F(x) = x + 1. Therefore we can say that the value x + 1 is "created", by the function F, from the value x. Comparing with your statement, this must imply that there is some value x + 1 for which F(x) does not exist (in other words, there is a "first element.") But this DOES NOT FOLLOW. There are in fact an infinite number of integers x, and for EACH OF THEM there is a y such that F(y) = x.
The fact that we are talking about universes instead of integers doesn't really matter. Maybe the chain is infinite. Just because YOU don't want to accept that doesn't make it any less possible.
So if this universe shreds apart, and breaks off into other, smaller universes, and those break into others and so forth, where is all the matter for each of the universes coming from? Are we to believe that more matter just comes from the ether? If this theory is true, then is it the destiny of our "multiverese" to devolved into a near infinite amount of tiny universes filled with just a single atom, quark, or string? Seems like a bleak (and improbable) future to me...
Ehm yeh, but there are only 2 ways to go:
Either something can come from nothing (good luck with proving that) or something comes from something (good luck proving that too). And in the latter case, if something is only possible from something then something can't exist; it's a paradox.
You're right that we can't prove either way whether it's possible for something to come from nothing - it's just a generally accepted premise. I'm not aware of anyone who has seriously doubted it. The closest I can think of is theists who believe the world was created "ex nihlo" - literally, "from nothing" - but even they usually say that it didn't *really* come from nothing; it came from God. "Something cannot come from nothing" is actually a premise in one of the oldest and most popular arguments for the existence of God, the "first cause" version of the cosmological argument.
But your second sentence there is incorrect. If it is true that something cannot come from nothing (which seems correct), then either something has always existed, or nothing ever has or ever will exist; and since it is evidently true now that something exists, you must conclude that something has always existed. The first cause argument tries to twist this into "there is some [particular] thing which has always existed", i.e. an eternal being, a.k.a. God, but that's not equivalent to the conclusion of this line of reasoning, which is simply that at any given point in time, the statement "something exists" has been true, or equivalently, if you were to ask about any given thing "was there something before that?", the answer will be "yes". (This is not to rule out the logical possibility of there having been a single eternal being preceding everything else; it merely shows that that's not a necessary conclusion of the premises "something can't come from nothing" and "something now exists").
Your supposed paradox arises because you're trying to ask a question that doesn't really make sense. Suppose you told me that for every real number, there was a smaller number; that is to say, that there is no "smallest number" (which is true). And then I asked you "ah, but what number is smaller than the whole number line?" That's not a well-formed question... the number line itself has no numerical value, so there is no "smaller than" it. Likewise, while it's true (given something can't come from nothing) that there is always something preceding any other thing, it makes no sense to ask "ah, but what preceded all of it?". There is no "before" the timeline, any more than there is a "less than" the number line.
I like to pose a similar line of reasoning to science-minded people who reject theistic first-cause argument, but still like to claim that there was literally no such thing as time before the big bang. The physics equivalent of "something cannot come from nothing" is the law of conservation of mass-energy; which says that it (mass-energy) can never be created or destroyed. This is taken to be a law of physics, i.e. inviolable. Given that, and the fact that mass-energy presently exists, it's then just as quick and easy to deduce that mass-energy has always existed, as something is here now, but it could not have been created, so it must have always been. The only alternative to this is either that the conservation of mass-energy isn't really a law of physics, and that in certain (perhaps very unlikely, but theoretically reproducible) circumstances it can be violated, and something can really come from nothing - which not many physicists will want to accept - or that it is an "inviolable" law of nature which on one single occasion was actually violated - in other words, to call the Big Bang a miracle, which is just to give up on science entirely and say "I don't know what happened and I'm not going to try to find out".
Of course, this isn't to rule out that the Big Bang happened; all empirical evidence points to the known cosmos originating from an explosion of some sort in the distant past. This is just to rule out that ther
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
this is great, first time reading it, Asimov is amazing as always, thx for the link
Check out Pandora by Music Genome Project
Also, if you accept that something can't come from nothing, then the notion that there's an infinite series of previous universes is also absurd. If they can't be created out of nothing, then they couldn't have existed.
See the rather long post I just made elsewhere in this thread, First Causes and Infinite Serieses. To sum it up: given that something exists now, either (A) Something can come from nothing, and thus there was a first thing that just popped into being, or (B) Something can't come from nothing, and everything which exists came from something else, which came from something else, and so on back forever. Asking "but where did that series come from" is a poorly formed question, like asking "what number is smaller than the number line?" The number line doesn't have a numerical value, it's just a way of thinking about numbers in general, so it makes no sense to ask what's smaller than it; and likewise, the time line doesn't exist at any point in time, it's just a way of thinking about time in general, so it makes no sense to ask what came before it. But for anything on the time line, it makes sense to ask what came before it, and for everything there is an answer to that question, meaning there is no first thing; just as for every number on the number line, it makes sense to ask what number is smaller than it, and for every number there is an answer to that question, meaning there is no smallest number.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
That's the question that scientists exist to answer.
The Great Engineer didn't give us his documentation, so great minds are attempting to reverse engineer his design. That is Science.
If you must moderate, please moderate as irrelevent, not something bad, because I'm sure someone will find this interest
Gregory Benford's "Cosm" ran a similar idea: Universes are created in particle accelerators accidentally, and inherit physical "constants" from the parent universe.
Two things make me ponder this:
1. Can't see outside the known universe.
2. Can't see outside the event horizon if you were inside a black hole.
Matter shows up in the universe that isn't exactly accounted for. If our universe is itself actually the inside of some black hole, then that could possibly explain where stuff comes from and maybe help on the age issue. Think of it as one more level to the fractal nature of matter.
"How is it flamebait if someone even mentions God?...the statement was made in a very tasteful way and it is simply the poster's opinion. I know *most* everyone on Slashdot doesn't believe in God in the traditional sense but Intelligent Design is as good a theory as any...If you were really thinking scientifically you would take all theories into account and not dismiss others because of how ridiculous it is solely based on the majority of the scientific community. The majority of the scientific community used to believe the Earth was flat, you couldn't split an atom, among so many other things. Science is not infallible"
Intelligent design is not a scientific theory because it's not falsifiable. That doesn't mean it must be wrong (because it might be historically true), but the reason it's important for things to be falsifiable is because this gives us a mechanism to gain confidence in things we discover.
Science is also not infallible, which is why the justification for belief is important. There needs to be a reason something is held to be true, "You haven't got a better idea." isn't enough. And there needs to be a willingness to abandon things that are shown to be wrong, something various religious organizations haven't been terribly willing to do (eg Galileo got locked up for claiming that heavenly bodies could orbit something other than the Sun).
You shouldn't take my word for it that the Earth is round, you should agree that it is a reasonable conclusion from the fact that different parts of the world can simultaneously experience night and day, or that something casts a longer shadow as you go further north/south, or that you can go up into space and look at it and take pictures. It's not "zOMG SCIENCE SAID SO", it's a mechanism that allows good reasons for thinking things to be evaluated and filtered out from the bad reasons.
Intelligent design might indeed be historically accurate, but there aren't any good reasons to assume that it is. The Bible gives one account, but Hindus will give you another. In the absence of any good way to pick one over the rest, the only reasonable action is to keep looking for reasons. That's what led us to evolution, and parts of evolution that didn't hold up to the evidence (eg Darwin thought all change must be slow and gradual) get shot down just as surely as the claim that the Earth was created in its current form 6k years ago.
It's not a he said/she said thing, it's the fact that intelligent design brings nothing useful to the discussion. Without being able to test it, it doesn't give knowledge more weight, and accepting it implicitly means accepting that we don't need to bother expanding our knowledge. That's simply not a reasonable thing to expect.
I rarely criticize things I don't care about.
Like it's really necessary that we care. Chicken and Egg .. Bla Bla Bla Bla
Nothing worthy of reading here. More right along.
Heard any good sigs lately?
You definatly have time on your hands. I checked your forum. The 'style' of your writing is unmistakable which uncovers immediatly that you post under at least three different nicknames. Loads of threads only consist of (sometimes multiple) post by you.
I don't care about the spam or about how blantanly bad your posts smell of a marketing .
I care about your mental health. Usually spammers and scammers stand to gain from their activities. That's not the case with you. I suspect that you simply are mad.
So please, go see a doctor. Don't harm yourself or other!
___
No power in the 'verse can stop me
Your first point is spot on; I disagree with the second.
There is no chance involved with the state of the universe being as it is. Probability depends on the lack of info concerning some aspect in the occurence of an event, coupled with an understanding of the various possible outcomes. Chances are, in other words, a product of the lack of knowledge at some level.
But even if we do not understand fully the universe and the entities that embody it's existence (matter, energy) we must submit to the fact that everything could not have existed any other way. Starting from the big bang (assume it is correct for now), the physical state of the universe and every miniscule particle or quanta is predetermined by the nature of the universe - the nature that theoretical physics has tried so hard to explain. Every movement of a photon, every change in electron state, every interaction resulting from one of the 4 main observed forces is directed by characteristics that exist even in spite of our ignorance. I'm not preaching determinism here(no time for that argument), just saying that there is no reason for anything to occur in any other manner than it has occurred..the universe (or some part of it) must be different for that to happen, and there is no reason for the universe to be different.
This is why a dialog with the GP poses a dilemma. He claims that since there are so many perceived possibilities for the progression of physical nature, the fact that we ended up this way is startling. If I were to remind him that there has only been one real possibility all along, I would be making matters WORSE, because that means the wondrous universe resulted from the only possible chain of events, and that last sentence itself should make you uncomfortable.
Worse still, theoretical physics is almost surely doomed to fail in providing us with a reason for existence in the first place. Why are the universal entities the way they are? Why do they happen to "be", to "exist"? A true grand unification of theories will need to be based on mathematics ALONE, and the problem with mathematics is that "logic" is conceptual - imaginary - and the physical universe is not.
God is a good answer because the only good answers will be the ones we cannot, by definition, understand. Have a nice day, Richard.
"The model could solve the mystery of why our early universe was surprisingly well ordered."
And to think, Christianity already has the answer: "In the Beginning, God created [the Universe]." It's very unsurprisingly well ordered when one guy codes the whole thing.
What those who want activist courts fear is rule by the people.
What was the purpose of the first computer? How does that measure up against the uses we have found for computers?
We are each here because of a highly improbable chain of events and free to decide (within limits) how much chance we might give our particular chain of contributing to an even more interesting future.
You can only really judge purpose retrospectively. Before that it is just intentions and we know what happens to the best of intentions. It also helps to be optimistic enough to recognise both that the future is still being worked out and that what you do could make some difference.
As of 2007, highly functional autonomous humans are the only known actors with a capacity for reflection which can be used to anticipate future purposes at a level which might have significant consequence. All the other beauty we find in this world has flown blind.
Looking to the mythical past for some purpose is but a mostly subconscious tactic of control freaks.
The future is only a losing game if you've already lost it.
-- Our systemic servants do not good masters make.
At one level his first chapter of Three Roads to Quantum Gravity is titled "There is nothing outside the universe" and insists science draw a line of denial at event horizons.
Then in a recent paper "The status of cosmological natural selection" he claims to show that his 20 year old theory of black holes begetting big bangs produces testable predictions for "landscape theories" which he sees as being more scientific than string theory's reliance on the weak anthropic principle.
My own take is that everything we observe is at some level mediated by photons which are subject to Heisenberg's resolution limits and that it is more likely that type 1a supernovae beget seeds of chaotic inflation within which cosmoses subject to conservative physical laws naturally bubble out.
Is that too big for your imagination?
-- Our systemic servants do not good masters make.
Parent does not seem to be a troll, just differently opinioned.
The brains of a chicken, coupled with the claws of two eagles, may well hatch the eggs of our destruction.
So basically what you're saying is that scientists have devised a way to debunk one (or more) of the inconsistencies in Star Wars.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Exactly, it's turtles, all the way down...
i hotdog.
Assuming that Special Relativity is correct, every particle will eventually enter every other particle's light cone since light cone expands faster than particles can get away from one another.
First they say Earth is the center and everything goes around it. Then they say teh Universe is infinite. Later, they say the Universe is finite but eternally expanding. Some time later, they say the Universe will stop some day, and it will come back and kill us. Then, they say the Universe does that forever. Now, they say a new Big Bang comes with billions of other Big Bangs. The Universe is every day more infinite, thanks to these guys @@ Later they will say here's an Universe inside this Universe, and they coexist at the same time. One day I'll start doubting I'm something.
Minti: What's that huge shuriken in your back?! Kin: It's the instrument of my victory.
If the universe is expanding, then there might be things that are heading away from us at the speed of light (speed of light = c).
s pace#Raisin_bread_model/
Since they are receding at 100% of c, you'll never see them; their light cannot ever catch up to us: we are (relative to them) moving away from them at the speed of light and since neither can go faster than c, whatever distance separates us can never be crossed, it is infinite: no matter how long you travel at c, you get no closer.
This is the same reason we see galaxies receding from us at nearly c; if they were red-shifted any more (receding at c), they would be outside our light cone and invisible in every sense. They would not exist as far as we are concerned.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_
I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
Why does there have to be an end? Why cant it be turtles all the way down?
Turtles all the way up too...
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
So in other words, the Indian woman was right? "Turtles, all the way down..."
No comment.
"... all we need to answer this question, ... "
/answering/ the question. That's *begging* it. You're just saying it was created by something that has a universe-creating quality. Tell me, *how* does this entity create universes? Does God have a special gland that he squeezes them out of?
That's not
So in other words, the Indian woman was right? "Turtles, all the way down..."
In a sense, yes. The two questions are perfectly analogous; it's just the answers that differ.
If you take the premises that everything (solids at least) must rest upon something or else it will fall, and that we are not falling right now, then you must conclude that as we rest upon the Earth, the Earth must rest upon something else, and that upon something else, and so on forever. Likewise, if everything must come from something or else nothing would exist, and something does exist, then everything must have come from something else, which came from something else, and so on forever.
The disanalogy here is that we now consider one of the two premises in the "turtles all the way down" argument false. It is not true that the Earth is not falling right now. The Earth IS falling. We just understand the nature of free fall (and motion in general) differently than people of Aristotelian times did. So yeah, if everything must rest on something else in order to not fall, and we are not falling, then everything we're resting on (the Earth) must rest upon something else; but the Earth IS falling, so you don't have to draw that conclusion. Alternatively, if you wanted to say that we are not falling, but still reject the conclusion, then you'd have to say that some things can just magically defy gravity.
Likewise, if you want to say either (1) that something can come from nothing (analogous to "things can magically defy gravity"), or (2) that nothing presently exists (analogous to "we are in fact falling right now"), then you're welcome to conclude that there was a point in time in which nothing existed. Unlike in the turtle example, we're very unlikely to reject the second premise (that is, to say that nothing exists now), so we've either got to reject the first one (and say that things can magically pop into existence for no reason), or accept the conclusion (that there is an infinite series of things going back forever).
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=184988 &cid=15276485