Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Past a Certain Critical Temperature, the Universe Will Be Destroyed

Posted by timothy on from the tautologies-are-tautologies dept.

StartsWithABang writes: If you take all the kinetic motion out of a system, and have all the particles that make it up perfectly at rest, somehow even overcoming intrinsic quantum effects, you'd reach absolute zero, the theoretically lowest temperature of all. But what about the other direction? Is there a limit to how hot something can theoretically get? You might think not, that while things like molecules, atoms, protons and even matter will break down at high enough temperatures, you can always push your system hotter and hotter. But it turns out that the Universe limits what's actually possible, as any physical system will self-destruct beyond a certain point.

75 of 143 comments (clear)

  1. This universe will self-destruct in 15... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ... Slashdotian time units*.

    * A Slashdotian time unit is defined as 1/15th of the time of this post to the universe's self-destruction.

    1. Re:This universe will self-destruct in 15... by Tanktalus · · Score: 1

      Ah, so one Slashdotian time is the theoretical time after which a story will no longer have new dupes posted? That makes things make much more sense around here.

  2. "News" for nerds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    So, you've got a pop-sci article about what happens at high temperature. Let's break down just a few of the failures:

    i) It talks about things that have been known for decades - not exactly news.
    ii) Talks about phenomena like eternal inflation as though they are fact, rather than quite speculative.
    iii) The summary contradicts the article itself claiming a max temp is necessarily imposed.
    iv) The article claims that if we convert all the energy in the observable universe to heat we hit a maximum, completely ignoring the fact that cosmology doesn't work with fixed volumes.
    v) A maximum temperature contradicts a big bang model - you can argue with a singularity just fine, but no-one has good evidence that we didn't start in one yet. Particularly ironic given the name of the blog...

    Weak. Pathetically weak. I guess I shouldn't be shocked - StartsWithABang is always at the wide-eyed woo-woo end of communicating physics but this is SlashDot. We can do better...

    1. Re:"News" for nerds by erebus2161 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yeah, it's a pop-sci article about what happens at high temperature. Your tone makes this sound like a bad thing, but I'm not sure what is wrong with explaining the currently accepted best model of cosmology in accessible language. Not everyone has a background in theoretical physics and I think it's kind of awesome that some people try to bring science to more people. i) It does talk about things that have been known for decades, but it never claims to be news. And I think a lot of people forget about the second half of the Slashdot motto, "Stuff that matters." ii) I didn't see anything about eternal inflation in the article, but as far as whether they are fact or speculative, in my experience most of physics is speculative. That's why we have the Theory of Relativity, the Standard Model of Particle Physics, etc. Notice the words theory and model. iii) It doesn't. Both the summary and the article claim the Universe limits the max temp. iv) I think the article was just doing some math with what we know about the composition of the observable universe to make a point. v) I'm not sure how a maximum temperature contradicts a big bang model. Possibly because a big bang model would mean that all the matter and energy in the observable and non-observable universe were condensed to a very small volume or singularity the temp according to the article would be higher than the temp for inflation and therefore that small volume or singularity could never have been reached in the first place because inflation would have taken place earlier and caused space to expand and cool? I'm guessing at your point. I guess I just don't get the hate towards StartsWithABang. They get a lot of posts on Slashdot which I guess is suspicious, but the information always seems objectively presented, accurate and maybe some people don't like the writing style, but I think it is ok to be excited about science when you are writing for a general audience and not presenting a piece of academic research.

    2. Re:"News" for nerds by antiperimetaparalogo · · Score: 1

      I guess I just don't get the hate towards StartsWithABang. They get a lot of posts on Slashdot which I guess is suspicious, but the information always seems objectively presented, accurate and maybe some people don't like the writing style, but I think it is ok to be excited about science when you are writing for a general audience and not presenting a piece of academic research.

      Neither i get that hate towards StartsWithABang (when it is more than a rightful criticism for the (at least) "suspicious" constant posts on Slashdot) - their articles (this was not their best in my opinion, but anyway, it was in their usual easy to understand motif) are "advanced" enough for the "general audience" (people like me, who like Cosmology but could not understand "a piece of academic research", as you put it - i could not even follow most of your points in your comments criticizing the points of the article!).

      --
      Antisthenes: "Wisdom begins by examining the words/names." - excuse my English, i am (slightly...) better with my Greek!
    3. Re:"News" for nerds by jfengel · · Score: 3, Interesting

      A lot of hate might be averted by making it clear that it's a review article rather than a news article. This is a news site, and its audience has a large numbers of experts and interested laymen. The assumption is that it's telling us something we don't already know, and the style of the summary is no different from any other Slashdot post. The effect sounds offensive and condescending: "Here's a thing you didn't know!" "Actually, I do, and better than the underlying article."

      The article itself is (usually) fine in its original context. It's the appearance on Slashdot that aggravates the Slashdotters. Combined with the fact that people are rather sensitive to spam, and an out-of-place article looks like spam (even if it isn't), which ties into a whole separate set of aggravations.

      If they were to present it with a different subtext: "Hey, we're nerds here. This is a topic that many of you know about, but many don't, and it would be interesting to discuss it amongst ourselves. This article is a good starting point." That would start with a different writing style, one that didn't imply that the information was brand new. It wouldn't hurt to add a visual differentiator as well: a different icon, maybe even a different color or shape. And perhaps a way for people to filter it from their streams.

      I get that there isn't nearly as much interesting, discussable news as one might think, so Slashdot has to drag in some stuff from wider afield. If they acknowledged that, and adjusted for it, they could make it a positive experience for their audience, rather than a negative one.

    4. Re:"News" for nerds by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 1

      Sounds like the Climate Change Nazis have lost their sense of humour. That was a joke folks...

    5. Re:"News" for nerds by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Joke

      noun:
      A thing that someone says to cause amusement or laughter, especially a story with a funny punchline.

      "She was in a mood to tell jokes"

      It wasn't funny, it's not a joke.

    6. Re:"News" for nerds by suutar · · Score: 1

      nah, if the purpose was amusement it's still a joke. Not being funny just makes it a bad joke.

    7. Re:"News" for nerds by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 1

      You must be fun at parties...

  3. This guy... by EmeraldBot · · Score: 1

    This guy has anawful lot of confidence in how the universe works, I'll give him that much. I am only a lowly being compared to him, but isn't this all speculation? I'm pretty sure this is not a science with any kind of proof or even basic consistent knowledge, but don't let me get in the way.

    --
    "Set a man a fire, he'll be warm for the rest of the night. Set a man afire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
    1. Re:This guy... by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      I'm no physicist, but it sounds wrong to me: the energy he names is merely 10^24eV, which is not far beyond energies of observed cosmic rays (10^21eV-ish). It's inconceivable that this hasn't been ever reached within the Universe, which according to the guy's claims should have caused a reset.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    2. Re:This guy... by Baloroth · · Score: 3, Informative

      This guy has anawful lot of confidence in how the universe works, I'll give him that much. I am only a lowly being compared to him, but isn't this all speculation? I'm pretty sure this is not a science with any kind of proof or even basic consistent knowledge, but don't let me get in the way.

      You are correct, it's mostly a bunch of pop-sci woo-woo. For example, a massless particle no matter how energetic cannot on it's own convert into a black hole as he claims, because no matter how much energy it has you can always Lorentz boost into a frame where it has arbitrarily small amounts of energy. Likewise the photons in your room have arbitrarily large amounts of energy, depending on the reference frame you choose. But they have no mass, and a system requires a certain amount of mass to convert into a black hole (and the mass of system is invariant, i.e. it's the same in every reference frame).

      The "the Universe would be destroyed" bit is also completely and purely theoretical at this point: we have no real proof for inflation at all. Our physics just doesn't really extend to those energy scales yet.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    3. Re:This guy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Not invariant mass appears in Einstein equation but the stress-energy tensor. So yes, massless particles can collapse into a black hole. (if general relativity is correct at that scale)

    4. Re:This guy... by Velox_SwiftFox · · Score: 1

      Once an event horizon forms, it doesn't matter what mass/energy formed a black hole; an all-energy black hole is called a kugelblitz. No matter how much you accelerate it, though, a particle remains the same mass in its own frame. It just appears to have a higher energy to the initial frame. It's kind of like the question of an object being so fast relativity shortens it to a black hole density.

    5. Re:This guy... by bidule · · Score: 1

      But they have no mass, and a system requires a certain amount of mass to convert into a black hole (and the mass of system is invariant, i.e. it's the same in every reference frame).

      Kugelblitz.

      --
      ID: the nose did not occur naturally, how would we wear glasses otherwise? (apologies to Voltaire)
    6. Re:This guy... by Baloroth · · Score: 1

      Yes, but a Kugelblitz requires two or more massless particles to interact to form a black hole (because while a photon is massless and can never form a black hole, a system of photons is generally not and certainly could given the right conditions). And a heat-formed kugelblitz would generally not be stable: black holes radiate energy same as any black body (in fact, black holes are basically perfect black bodies), and dissipate at a rate inversely proportional to their mass, which means at around the black hole forming temperature black holes would pop in and out of existence as they formed and quickly dissipate. They'd just become part of the thermal equilibrium system. Granted, he is right that at extremely high temperatures black hole formation would start to become stable, which would probably prevent temperatures above a certain point. But, as I say, that is way beyond our current physics.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    7. Re:This guy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's an Ask Ethan page. Not exactly an Explain-like-I'm-Five but plenty of pop-sci woo-woo to keep it entertaining. And that awful page layout used by every Physics web blog since 2014.

      For example, a massless particle no matter how energetic cannot on it's own convert into a black hole as he claims, because no matter how much energy it has you can always Lorentz boost into a frame where it has arbitrarily small amounts of energy

      "Mass"-less black-holes are perfectly possible. They are called Kugelbitz and are composed purely of "energy." Their existence in the models gives rise to the Plank Temperature, a point at which one cannot raise the temperature of anything before it becomes a slowly cooling black hole.

      The original work on singularities to refute Einstein's space-time model (and by extension the black holes around them) do not talk of a difference between energy as mass and energy as momentum. The Lortenz equations mentioned only care about relative speed to that of light as measured in time (traveling) or space (geometry.) Once you are mass-less, thus moving at light-speed, there are no Lorentz effects to consider anymore. You've either divided by zero or just have the same properties as light. Then your temperature is just your frequency by definition.

      Normally, temperature for atomic, particle and molecular systems is defined as the relative motion of matter to a rest frame. Since rest frames don't really exist, the only frame with arbitrarily small amounts of energy is one in which your reference frame loses contact with the frame under consideration, in other words another 'black' hole. Inside a "boosted" frame time and thus temperature continue to rise in Ethan's magical box. Once all the temperature is high enough that matter breaks down into photons or other mass-less particles that only have momentum as measured by the frequency. Which, per the Kugelblitz results, can certainly create a black hole. This light inside the boosted frame would just appear to you really dim and cool to your reference frame but would in fact be quite warm. The Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) is a perfect example. The CMB looks cool today but comes from a time where the Universe was ridiculously small and thus dense. Expansion of space stretched it out (the geometry part) and made is lower frequency (the cooling part).

      we have no real proof for inflation at all. Our physics just doesn't really extend to those energy scales yet.

      Like Evolution, we have evidence for inflation - it is consistent with actual observation of the world around us. Namely everything flying away (redshift) and that CMB. Unlike evolution we don't get to watch it happen directly on human time scale.

      Sadly our current physics doesn't seem to extend even into our current energy scales. Consider dark energy. Most the energy of the current Universe is claimed to be the invisible stuff to explain the dimming of Type 1a Supernova observations. Mystery power pushing everything away.

      There are theories that inflation is the natural physical behavior of whatever space-time is and our current period of slow expansion is a fluke cause by something else. (There are plenty of graphs with knees in them where everything interesting to us happens.) Talking about the birth and death of the Universe is a fun ride, but sometimes Cosmology is a real bummer.

    8. Re:This guy... by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      Energy and mass are equivelent. Massless particles (light) can have effects like particles with mass because of their energy.

      Example: radiometers

      Don't pretend you know everything about high energy physics either.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    9. Re:This guy... by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Example: radiometers

      Are you referring to the Cookes radiometer? If so, it's a heat engine and requires low pressure gas in the bulb, not a hard vacuum.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    10. Re:This guy... by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      I guess that underscores the problem with the minds ability to grasp really big numbers. I suggest you think about just how insanely, incredibly bigger 10^24 is than 10^21. Something similar, but quite unlike trip to the chemist.

      10^3 insanely big ?

    11. Re:This guy... by Bengie · · Score: 1

      "Grasping" a 1000x difference is easy. It's the difference between a millimeter and a meter.

    12. Re:This guy... by strikethree · · Score: 1

      If I recall correctly, heat is nothing more than the vibration (kinetic energy) of particles. A vibration is essentially a wave and the shortest wavelength corresponds to one of the planck limits. That means there is a maximum amount of heat that a particle can have. That also means there is a maximum frequency for electromagnetic waves.

      I have not seen the actual calculations and I do not have the requisite knowledge to perform them myself. If I looked carefully, I am sure I could come within an order of magnitude without actually doing any math: For example, we know that terahertz frequencies can be achieved because we use them. What is the wavelength of a terahertz wave and what is the planck length?

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    13. Re:This guy... by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Or, for the unit-impaired, between an inch and 83.33333 feet.

    14. Re:This guy... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      "Grasping" a 1000x difference is easy. It's the difference between a millimeter and a meter.

      I'm always a bit suspicious when the real world throws up coincidences like a metre being exactly 1000x a millimetre. The metric system rings all sorts of alarm bells in my mind, almost as though we're living in vast computer-generated holographic virtual reality simulation and sometimes the programmers forget to roughen up the edges a little for realism.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  4. Old topic by Dutch+Owl · · Score: 5, Informative

    Isaac Asimov posted a column in 1957 asking the same question. The column was subsequently published in a book of his collected scientific columns. A graduate student took the question posed by the column and used it for his doctorate thesis over fifty years ago.

    1. Re:Old topic by Snard · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The question was also posted to the Multivac, but as of this writing, there is insufficient data for a meaningful answer.

      --
      - Mike
    2. Re:Old topic by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

      But, somehow someone has shed some light about what the answer from Multivac is going to be eventually.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    3. Re:Old topic by Livius · · Score: 1

      Multivac gave its answer a long time ago.

      But, this is Slashdot, sometimes we get news that's old...

    4. Re:Old topic by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

      How long ago? 6000 years or 14 billion years? There seem to be difference of opinion about that.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    5. Re:Old topic by Opyros · · Score: 1

      Sounds like "The Height of Up", which was reprinted in both View from a Height and Asimov on Physics.

  5. yeah ummm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    pics or it didn't happen.

    And wtf is with all the reposting from medium.com. /. didn't use to carry blogs.

  6. Re:Please explain a passage from the article by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Well, I think he's saying that after the big bang, the energy density of that microdot of universe was so high it triggered inflation.

    Ergo, if you jam enough energy into a tiny enough space, you could recreate the whatever-it-was that triggered inflation, and trigger a new inflation from that spot, probably destroying everything else in the universe the same way Daffy Duck's modern home appliance salesman did: "In the modern home, we don't go upstairs. We bring the upstairs...down."

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  7. Re:Please explain a passage from the article by fisted · · Score: 1

    before the Big Bang

    bzzzzt.
     
    It's not known whether the universe was created by the Big Bang, or the Invisible Pink Unicorn, but if we assume the Big Bang model, then I don't see how there can be any "before" it.

    --
    CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
  8. Re:Please explain a passage from the article by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    https://youtu.be/218jRhV682k?t...

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  9. Re:"all the particles"? by Falconnan · · Score: 1

    No, that part is actually correct in that all known fundamentals could exist. If you mean uranium nuclei, well then yeah, you're right.

  10. Re:Even Check Norris ? by smittyoneeach · · Score: 1

    Never heard of her.

    --
    Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
  11. Re:Universal warming alarmists are full of it! by rmdingler · · Score: 2

    I believe the grandonymous one was executing a clever parody of global war..., er, climate change.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

  12. Re:Based on "old" science by Psychotria · · Score: 2

    I think that the proposed "rainbow gravity" (http://phys.org/news/2015-01-black-holes-space-theory.html) and the big bang theory are mutually exclusive

    http://www.scientificamerican....
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...

  13. No GLARING ERRORS, but 2 issues by Falconnan · · Score: 1

    There's nothing wrong with the idea that inflation might kick-off between 10^28 and 10^29 that we know about, but for any region of spacetime large enough for that to be an issue, the region should become enclosed by an event horizon. In other words, every black hole may contain its own reality. Which comports nicely with the idea that our universe is almost precisely at the critical density. Secondly, I find it much more interesting to wonder what happens when large enough regions of the universe have low enough energies. Will there be another phase transition? We're not just talking cold, we're talking cold with densities on the order of a couple of atoms in a volume the size of our visible universe AND hypercold. If there's no big rip (itself a phase transition in slow motion), that is the future.

    1. Re:No GLARING ERRORS, but 2 issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There's nothing wrong with the idea that inflation might kick-off between 10^28 and 10^29 that we know about, but for any region of spacetime large enough for that to be an issue, the region should become enclosed by an event horizon. In other words, every black hole may contain its own reality.

      Take the mass of the universe, and you'll find that the radius of the black hole is larger than observable universe. So, either we are in a black hole, or there is more to gravity.

    2. Re:No GLARING ERRORS, but 2 issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "Secondly, I find it much more interesting to wonder what happens when large enough regions of the universe have low enough energies. Will there be another phase transition?"

      How do you know it hasn't already happened? Typical transition temperatures for Bose-Einstein condensation are on the order of 5K or so. The universe passed through 5K at a redshift of around 0.75 (which happens to roughly correspond with the redshift at which universal acceleration seems to have kicked in). It's not outwith the bounds of speculation to concoct a form of matter that was pressureless before then and now behaves quite differently. A BEC's equation of state is typically of the form p \propto \rho^2 - that is the pressure is proportional to the square of the energy density - while for dark energy we want something of the form p \propto -\rho, so getting a dark energy this way looks problematic, but it's worth remembering that dynamics with quadratic equations of state is quite rich and even if this wouldn't directly accelerate the universe, we've effectively just lost an additional brake on dark energy. That is, for temperatures greater than the critical temperature, dark energy is balanced (or overwhelmed) by normal matter + cold dark matter + whatever this is; below the critical temperature that balance has been disrupted and we've started to lose the fight.

      It doesn't deal with the coincidence problem entirely but suggesting an epoch of condensation can certainly relax it a bit. I do know of some people who've spent a few years building models of BEC dark matter. I think their motivations are a bit different from the ones I'd have - and they're doing it properly rather than spitting speculation onto a message board - but it's certainly something that's being looked at.

    3. Re:No GLARING ERRORS, but 2 issues by Livius · · Score: 1

      either we are in a black hole, or there is more to gravity.

      Or both.

      Or what we know about both black holes and gravity is wrong.

  14. Re:Please explain a passage from the article by CODiNE · · Score: 1

    I don't see how there couldn't. Sure OUR perception of time is connected to gravity and matter, but something outside that would be unaffected. Unless you want the nothing became something and instantly blew up idea. To me that argument always felt like something intended to shut up the religious. "No there was NO TIME and NOTHING was before the universe, not even your God". To me time having no beginning makes more sense than it simply starting up one day. Would it be more correct to say "Spacetime began with the Big Bang"?

    --
    Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
  15. Re:Based on "old" science by Psychotria · · Score: 1

    I like how you say Sunday school and at the same time give the big bang theory gospel status. Very clever post.

  16. Timothy never learns... by The+New+Guy+2.0 · · Score: 1

    We're discussing explosives theory here, kids... get the Ammonia Nitrate bottle ready after you learn that formula, otherwise all you'll think about is how much heat it takes to make things go away..

    If you do heat the universe up to the point it all explodes, the thing giving the heat will be cold enough to survive.

    1. Re:Timothy never learns... by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      If you do heat the universe up to the point it all explodes, the thing giving the heat will be cold enough to survive.

      I'm thinking that there is a joke about Andrea Rossi and cold fusion in there, but I can't figure it out now . . .

      "Hey, Herr Rossi sucht sein Glück - - - "

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  17. McDonald's Coffee by meglon · · Score: 1

    .... nuff said.

    --
    Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    1. Re:McDonald's Coffee by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      McDonald's Coffee is the byproduct of a Mr. Fusion device.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
  18. Re:Based on "old" science by Psychotria · · Score: 1

    There is no direct quote... it's an allusion. That's why it's funny and clever.

  19. Re: Based on "old" science by Psychotria · · Score: 1

    Do you believe the BBT has been debunked by cosmologists properly accredited by degree-granting institutions?

    At this point in time, no.

  20. The ultimate bomb by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Alien version of M.A.D. Just hope suicidal terrorists don't get a hold of it.

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
  21. Re:Please explain a passage from the article by fisted · · Score: 1

    Would it be more correct to say "Spacetime began with the Big Bang"?

    That's the general idea, yes, as far as we (don't) understand it. Of course, whether that's true or not is an entirely different issue, but this model at least allows us to explain a few things (e.g. CMB).

    Assuming "Spacetime began with the Big Bang", I see no room for reasoning about what came "before" it. Of course, our spacetime might embedded into something else, but that's shifting the question rather than answering it, IMO.

    --
    CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
  22. speed of light c by Norsys · · Score: 1

    Temperature is dependant on the speed of molecules. If molecules are moving at the speed of light, then the temperature can not get any higher?

    --
    http://alamar.webege.com
    1. Re:speed of light c by Norsys · · Score: 1

      C is not equal to infinity, or is it? Since we have "absolute 0" where particles almost do not move, we should have "absolute temperature" where particles move with the speed of light c and can not move any faster. I don't see how one could test that.

      --
      http://alamar.webege.com
    2. Re:speed of light c by Norsys · · Score: 1
      You can have more and more kinetic energy as you get closer and closer to the speed of light.

      So a particle can not have more kinetic energy than the energy it has traveling at speed of light?

      --
      http://alamar.webege.com
    3. Re:speed of light c by suutar · · Score: 1

      Temperature's not dependent on the speed, it's dependent on the energy. Below lightspeed, yes, adding energy shows up mostly as increased speed, but (according to the article) once you get past a certain energy level it stops being "massy" and instead of the speed varying with energy, it just goes at lightspeed. The effect of adding more energy would show up as something analogous to increasing the frequency of a regular photon.

    4. Re:speed of light c by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Molecules do not travel at the speed of light; only massless particles do. It would take infinite energy to have something with positive mass going at c. Depending on the energy you put in it, you can get arbitrarily close to the speed of light.

      So, the question is, with available energy, how fast can you get something to go?

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  23. Medium.com by narcc · · Score: 2

    Just assume that it's not worth your time. It's much easier that way.

    --
    Required reading for internet skeptics
    1. Re:Medium.com by jfengel · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that was pretty much my response. I read the summary, and was trying to figure out what the actual news was. Then I hovered over the link, found it was medium, and clicked here to get a brief burst of schadenfreude from the people bashing medium. Achievement unlocked.

    2. Re:Medium.com by davester666 · · Score: 1

      but we should feel more guilty, as we are directly causing the death of the universe.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  24. Re:Please explain a passage from the article by Livius · · Score: 1

    If (1) inflation was caused by a volume of space with a particular energy density, and if (2) in the future a volume of space attained that same energy density, then it would undergo inflation.

    It's confusing because you think it's going to be interesting and insightful but it's merely tautological.

  25. random fluctuations will ensure immortality by mix_left_and_right · · Score: 1

    random fluctuations in matter will ensure that the universe will never end...and since I am a cryonicist, that means I will be immortal..while you will be eaten by the worm....

  26. Re:Even Check Norris ? by KGIII · · Score: 1

    Chesty Puller was full of nifty sayings but he was kind of an ass and put his men in jeopardy too easily and when it was not needed. See, for instance, well... Start with Chosin. I spent eight years as a Marine so I am partial to him but, and it is painful, I must admit he was pretty much an asshole.

    --
    "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  27. Re:that old ultra-violet catastrophe by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

    No, the ultraviolet catastrophe is a completely different phenomenon. It refers to the failure of classical (i.e., pre-quantum) theory to explain black-body radiation.

    BTW, black body != black hole.

    --
    If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
  28. What about the Planck temperature? by De_Boswachter · · Score: 1

    FTFA:

    If you managed to reach temperatures sufficient to bring this field back into its inflating state, you would effectively hit the “reset” button on the Universe, and cause inflation to resume, resulting in the Big Bang starting all over again.

    Would such a temperature have to be above or below the Planck temperature? If an object were to reach the temperature of 1.41 x 10^32 Kelvin, the radiation it would emit would have a wavelength of 1.616 x 10^26 nanometers (Planck length). Beyond that, if there's even a beyond, is the behaviour of matter even predictable at all?

    1. Re:What about the Planck temperature? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      AFAICT, there is no known physical effect of Planck units. Heck, the Planck mass is very approximately twenty micrograms, and nothing seems much changed above or below that.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  29. Re:What about... by michelcolman · · Score: 2

    Apparently, enough people find these interesting and vote them up every time so they keep appearing on the front page of Slashdot. I know, democracy is a bitch. Personally it doesn't bother me too much.

  30. Ask Ethan by Trax3001BBS · · Score: 1

    I've read/scanned one of his articles, that won't happen again. He was saying the Universe has always existed and always will (Steady State theory) and proving it, under the guise of what if.

  31. Re:Even Check Norris ? by smittyoneeach · · Score: 1

    You were expecting Richard Simmons?

    --
    Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
  32. Dang by AndyKron · · Score: 1

    I feel so limited. I hate this Universe!

  33. This is a useful article. by Rambo+Tribble · · Score: 1

    Pyromaniacs, like other dedicated individuals, need goals.

  34. Re:Please explain a passage from the article by Opyros · · Score: 1

    Actually, that point is rather closely analogous to a theological argument made by St. Augustine.

  35. Re:Universal warming alarmists are full of it! by tehcyder · · Score: 1

    I believe the grandonymous one was executing a clever parody of global war..., er, climate change.

    Well, no, it was a parody of climate change denialists.

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  36. Re:Universal warming alarmists are full of it! by rmdingler · · Score: 1
    Well, you have me there.

    I would be willing to present the extenuating circumstances for your perusal.

    Since I was defending the Firstposter, rather than seeking the self-gratifying adulation of a crafty original posit, I submit the punishment be mitigated to a stern look and a frown of short duration.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway