Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Universe May Be Running Out of Time

Posted by Zonk on from the ticking-clock dept.

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."

11 of 343 comments (clear)

  1. last post! by yagu · · Score: 5, Funny

    Ha, you only think this is offtopic!

  2. Time ... by foobsr · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... to book at Milliways !!!

    CC.

    --
    TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
  3. Pretty vague description of the problem... by GradiusCVK · · Score: 5, Funny

    Ms. Cartman: Doctor, did you find out what's wrong with him?
    Doctor: I'm afraid he's running out of time.
    Ms. Cartman: Why, what's wrong with him?
    Doctor: It's his time. It's running out.
    Ms. Cartman: What can we do?
    Doctor: Well, I suppose we can try a time transplant. I'll have to call a specialist.

  4. Of course it could do anything by explosivejared · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "We believe that time emerged during the Big Bang, and if time can emerge, it can also disappear - that's just the reverse effect," he says.

    Of course it could also flip us all upside down and turn everything a light salmon color!

    Note to self: Patent method for garnering scientific celebrity. Come up with outlandish theory, then claim that LHC will move it to the mainstream.

    --
    I got a catholic block.
  5. 3d Realms call to action by psbrogna · · Score: 5, Funny

    I believe this announcement should be taken as a wake up call by the Duke Nukem Forever developers. I'm standing by to place my order while the cosmos collapses around me.

  6. er...define 'constant'... by Quadraginta · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:er...define 'constant'... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I can see where you're confused. Actually the price of money *is* a good analogy. How much does a dollar cost? Depends on what you compare it to. Could be x yen or y pounds. Experiments demonstrate that the speed of light is a constant, and since speed = distance/time, time and space must warp accordingly. So what goes in the numerator? Basically, your calculus ratio should be something like dt(here)/dt(there) where 'here' and 'there' are different points in space and/or different inertial frames. Hope this helps.

    2. Re:er...define 'constant'... by Broken+Toys · · Score: 5, Informative

      It doesn't make "logical sense" because it violates "common sense".

      This isn't a new concept. Someone's just come up with a new theory to support the concept. This may just be another way of viewing the oft proposed heat death of the universe due to entropy.

      Stephen Hawkin amongst others has explained this before. In short, time as we know it didn't exist before the Big Bang. During the inflationary period of the Big Bang time was probably faster than we observe it today. Currently time has stablised somewhat but is probably slowing due to the expansion of the universe.

      All this suggests that time may be intertwined with space and now we're back to Einstein's space time continuum. This is one of consequences of Einstein's general theory of relativity.

      Me? I'm going to hide under a rock with a case of beer until this all blows over.

  7. Re:Add to that by calebt3 · · Score: 5, Funny

    We can only hope.

  8. Anyone else notice? by springbox · · Score: 5, Funny

    I always seem to read Large Hadron Collider as "Large Hardon Collider." Not sure how that's related to science.

  9. Re:Read the last line of the article first by calebt3 · · Score: 5, Funny

    How do you think we got most of our current theories? Fortune cookies in Chinese take-out.