Slashdot Mirror
Universe May Be Running Out of Time
RenHoek writes "With heat death, the big crunch and quite a few other nasty ways in which the universe could see its demise, we can now add "running out of time" to the list. A team of scientists came up with a new theory that would solve the problem of the elusive dark energy that seems to be accelerating the expansion of the universe. They figure that the universe is not speeding up but we are, in relation to the outer regions of space, slowing down. Tests with the upcoming Large Hadron Collider will give more insight if we're going to end up frozen in time."
If time turns out to be a non-constant, so goes everything we know about anything.
The problem with TFA is that it makes little logical sense. In what possible sense can time be "slowing down?" "Slowing down" is a statement that something is changing less per unit time. If you like, that dx/dt is negative.
But how can you measure the "rate" at which time itself is changing? If "change in time" (dt) is going to go in the numerator, what will go in the denominator? Can't be dt, of course. So how do you define the "rate" at which time changes? I can't think of anything. It's like asking the price of money. "Price" means "how much you get per unit money." You can't ask how much money you get per unit money. (Note to nitpickers: the price of currency, e.g. the price of dollars in drachma, is not a valid counterexample.)
I'm sure the physics makes sense, but the language in this news article does not. If anyone knows what the actual science is, I at least would be grateful for a better explanation than this news article provides. Anyone?
Physics always has been the domain of sci-fi authors. How do you think we got most of our current theories? (:
Just don't be so worried about all these universe or world-ending disasters that you absentmindedly step out into traffic and get hit by a bus. Like any vague fear of the future, the tricky part is to live long enough for it to matter :)
psmylie's dictionary: Godzillion (noun) Any number large enough to destroy Tokyo
I think that's exactly it. Frankly I didn't like South Park when it started and I still don't. I wanted to because Beavis and Butthead (which I thought was the pinnacle of parody) had just ended at the time. But South Park just didn't work. I think part of it is that the creators have a libertarian bent which seems to creep out in their work.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
Nah, that's the funny part of it. He can only actually get recognition if he fails.
If the environmentalists are successful, then nothing will happen.
It's like the Y2K bug: All those people working to ensure that nothing happens. So when in Y2K, nothing happened, the general response was "huh, guess there never was a problem after all."
If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
Not exactly. There a a billion theories exactly like this one but different, but exactly the same. They are all waiting on the Hadron collider to provide proof of higher order dimensions and thus not disprove their theories that depend upon higher dimensions. It will not prove which one is correct.
If you don't believe me subscribe to new scientist for a while. Every issue a new multi dimensional theory that could help to explain some feature of the universe but can only be proved/disproved at energies that we can't reach.
This is in essence what I'm saying. We are too far removed from being able to test these theories, that they are not likely to be correct. String theory is over 30 years old and we still haven't been able to prove or disprove it. Think about that, people have spent their entire careers working on a theory that many not be proved or disproved in their lifetimes. I think we were spoiled by the rate of rapid advance in the 20th century.
I never said physics was not science, but more like science fiction where you don't really have to prove anything just suggest something is plausible.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
Could you provide some links? Alan Montgomery doesn't show up in Wiki doesn't show anything and Google gets too many professors.
Chill, man. No need to get so defensive. Nobody's going to take Christmas away from you.
"Inerrancy" implies ID at best, young-earth creationism at worst. If we take the Bible literally, Creation in seven days is not supported by science.
A "liberal" interpretation of the Bible certainly has no problems with science. However, I would argue that looking for scientific support for the Bible is a misguided search. With religious texts being so open to interpretation, there's a guaranteed confirmation bias. If scientists overturn the Big Bang theory, there'll be no trouble justifying it with Creation. "Why, the universe has always existed, with no beginning? Of course, God made it that way!"
It's all too easy to justify religious beliefs.