Slashdot Mirror
Did Harvard Scientists Predict The End of the Universe? (gizmodo.com)
The universe will end with a bang -- and not a whimper -- reports The New York Post, citing a new study by Harvard Researchers predicting exactly when (and how) the universe will end. But Gizmodo's science writer takes issue with the media coverage:
That paper predicts that the universe's lifetime would be between 10**88 and 10**241 years, but probably probably around 10**139 years. "I think people don't have a sense as to how big these numbers are," study author and physicist Matthew Schwartz from Harvard told Gizmodo. "It's such an enormous out of time. But they think 10**139 years is 139."
The universe is around 10 billion, or 10**10 years old. 10**139 is a completely unfathomable number of years... It's more than the amount of time it would take to count every atom in the universe, if you had to wait from the Big Bang until now in between counting each atom. That number of years eludes any rational attempt to understand it (Which is probably why it sounds so close -- our heads just short circuit and say, threat!!!). It is forever.
The universe is around 10 billion, or 10**10 years old. 10**139 is a completely unfathomable number of years... It's more than the amount of time it would take to count every atom in the universe, if you had to wait from the Big Bang until now in between counting each atom. That number of years eludes any rational attempt to understand it (Which is probably why it sounds so close -- our heads just short circuit and say, threat!!!). It is forever.
A range of 153 orders of magnitude isn't my idea of "exactly". The difference between the largest distances (the size of the observable universe) and the smallest distances (Planck's length) is only 62 orders of magnitude.
That paper predicts that the universe's lifetime would be between 10**88 and 10**241 years, but probably probably around 10**139 years.
Since when is "**" the way to write exponentiation on shitty systems that can't even handle an innocuous tag like <sup>, such as Slashdot?
Use a ^ like normal people. Or just let use <sup>. Jeez. It's bad enough that you still haven't got unicode, but <sup>? C'mon.
And yes, I know some programming languages use "**". This isn't a programming language, this is supposed to be a news site.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
"... between 10**88 and 10**241 years..."
I hope it's okay with you if I don't worry about this now.
The first 10**42 years were the worst.
rewriting history since 2109
They can predict all they want. They simply cannot prove it.
"It's more than the amount of time it would take to count every atom in the universe, if you had to wait from the Big Bang until now in between counting each atom"
That... is actually a really great way to communicate just how long that span of time is. That totally blew my mind.
> if proton decay exists.
You may appreciate this short story based on answering that question. It just won Scientific American Magazine's writing competition for stories based on quantum mechanics.
http://shorts2017.quantumlah.o...
In EVERY direction. And don't stop at 10....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
If it's based on the article I'm thinking of, it's based on the idea that the Higgs boson is at a meta-stable position, and could fall off...and that if one did anywhere in the universe a bubble of reconfiguration with a more stable Higgs would expand at the speed of light (or possibly faster). This can't currently be shown to be wrong, but seems dubious. OTOH, the probability of a Higgs changing state was calculated to be extremely small...which is why the estimated long time...but, of course, it could have already happened in a place currently outside our light cone.
It's not the only "this could cause the end of the universe" theory out there. The current energy level is called a false vacuum, and may be only metastable. I'm not sure if anyone has calculated what would cause it to collapse, and how likely it is, but it could be true and it could happen. If so, the only way to tell would be to experiment. There are other theories of a similar nature. Brane theory says the big bang was caused by two branes colliding, and they may do it periodically. That one doesn't seem to have anyway to cause it to happen by experimenting, but like the others there's no way of telling before it happens that it's going to happen.
So don't take this theory too seriously. The evidence in support of it is not exclusive to it. There are probably other interpretations than that the Higgs field is only metastable.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
The fact that the number 10**241 itself is unfathomable, is in itself unfathomable. Here's why. It is perfectly possible to generate a non-repeating series of random numbers many orders of magnitude larger than 10**241. In fact, if you generate 10**241 random numbers per second, your random number series need not repeat in 10**241 years, that is to say during the life of the Universe, as we know posit it.
You cannot generate 10^241 random numbers per second. You cannot generate that ever, in this universe, no matter how long the universe lasts. That's because the maximum possible entropy of the universe is roughly 2.3*10^123 (that's the limit if the universe were a black hole - the actual entropy is quite a bit less). That's therefore also the limit on the largest number you could represent in any physical way.
I think it's fair to say that 10^241 is unfathomable. By the way, trying to store a number with an entropy of about 10^68 in the volume of the human skull will create a black hole.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Worse: Half the discussion is about how to spell 10^139 or 10**139 or 10e139
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...