Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Do We Live In a Giant Cosmic Bubble?

CmdrTaco posted more than 5 years ago | from the i-live-in-my-own-universe dept.

Space 344

Khemisty writes "Earth may be trapped in an abnormal bubble of space-time that is particularly void of matter. Scientists say this condition could account for the apparent acceleration of the universe's expansion, for which dark energy currently is the leading explanation. Until now, there has been no good way to choose between dark energy or the void explanation, but a new study outlines a potential test of the bubble scenario. If we were in an unusually sparse area of the universe, then things could look farther away than they really are and there would be no need to rely on dark energy as an explanation for certain astronomical observations. 'If we lived in a very large under-density, then the space-time itself wouldn't be accelerating,' said researcher Timothy Clifton of Oxford University in England. 'It would just be that the observations, if interpreted in the usual way, would look like they were.'"

cancel ×

344 comments

I know I do (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25219241)

Like, cosmic, man.

Re:I know I do (0)

alxkit (941262) | more than 5 years ago | (#25219273)

totally tubular

Re:I know I do (4, Funny)

SleptThroughClass (1127287) | more than 5 years ago | (#25220185)

Apparently someone is indeed less dense.

Management (3, Funny)

JayAitch (1277640) | more than 5 years ago | (#25220241)

Always thought it was upper management that lived in a bubble.

Bubble? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25219269)

The universe may not be the only bubble we're living in ...

Re:Bubble? (4, Interesting)

Praedon (707326) | more than 5 years ago | (#25220265)

Why does the first thing that comes to mind after reading just this headline, make me think of that one episode on Star Trek Voyager, when Voyager got caught in that planets atmosphere/space-time bubble and time on that planet was accelerating at like almost a week for every second on voyager... and then the civilization finally learned space travel and went up to voyager, and learned about all the time acceleration... Kinda screwed up if this is all true. :P

I always wondered... (4, Interesting)

clonan (64380) | more than 5 years ago | (#25219271)

If this was why the galaxies appear to rotate to quickly at the edges.

Would the greater density at the galactic cores cause time to go slower and effect the apparent speed as observed from the exterier of the system?

Re:I always wondered... (4, Informative)

Goaway (82658) | more than 5 years ago | (#25219407)

No. The gravitational forces required for time dilation to be that strong are many orders of magnitude stronger than what you'll find on the galactic scale.

You mean like... (2, Interesting)

clonan (64380) | more than 5 years ago | (#25219473)

a 3 million sun heavy black hole...like the one in the center of many galaxies including our own?

Re:You mean like... (4, Informative)

Quietust (205670) | more than 5 years ago | (#25219923)

There would definitely be significant time dilation in close proximity to said black holes, but beyond even a fraction of a light year it would become negligible due to the rate at which gravitational force weakens.

Re:You mean like... (1)

postbigbang (761081) | more than 5 years ago | (#25220325)

No Swarchild radii around here.....

Re:You mean like... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25219967)

Yes, if you are within several million miles of that black hole. Not at galactic scales.

Re:You mean like... (2, Informative)

caramelcarrot (778148) | more than 5 years ago | (#25220005)

The gravity from a 3 million sun black hole is no different to 3 million suns, and given that a galaxy will contain billions of such suns - no, that's not sufficient.

Re:You mean like... (1)

ksd1337 (1029386) | more than 5 years ago | (#25220315)

They will only be the same if those three million suns attract each other close enough to appear as a single mass.

if I was a faggot (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25219695)

The answer is, yes you are!

Sup slashdot (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25219287)

first from anon coward

Being special (5, Insightful)

Harmonious Botch (921977) | more than 5 years ago | (#25219291)

Ok, I'll believe that there are regions of space that are more dense than others. I'll even believe that we are in one of them. ( This is no harder than believing in dark matter and dark energy, and it's before breakfast )
But what I find hard to believe is that we are in the exact center of such a region. So therefore, the universe should appear to have different properties in different directions. Has anybody seen that?

Re:Being special (4, Funny)

BigGar' (411008) | more than 5 years ago | (#25219431)

Man you ain't kidding. Take a look at the Capitol Hill region of space. That is one ultra dense region of hot air, that isn't just warping space-time this is a region of space where the wildest of idea's are warped into reality.

Dark Matter (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25220187)

Capitol Hill region of space. That is one ultra dense region of hot air

Actually, that particular region of the universe consists of dark matter. It's an enormous pile of it, brown in color, steaming and giving off fetid odors that would knock a buzzard off a shit-wagon*. The region is full of it and amazingly, endless numbers of primitive little life-forms actually burrow themselves into it and suck nutrition from it.

* We miss you, George.

Re:Being special (1)

ksd1337 (1029386) | more than 5 years ago | (#25220345)

I think that 5-year olds got mod points today. Seriously mods, get a sense of humor. Slashdot isn't supposed to be politically correct or anything like that.

Re:Being special (4, Interesting)

someone1234 (830754) | more than 5 years ago | (#25219455)

Except if such specialties make our sentient life possible (or much more probable).

The anthropic cop-out (2, Informative)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#25219739)

Except if such specialties make our sentient life possible (or much more probable).

That's called the anthropic principle, and Wikipedia's article [wikipedia.org] cites criticisms by several philosophers of science who call it a cop-out.

Re:The anthropic cop-out (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25219983)

It's perfectly reasonable to think that, if sentient life requires unusual circumstances, then we will find ourselves in unusual circumstances.

It's already the case that we're in a rather odd location. Pick a random point in the universe. Does it happen to be on the surface of a planet? Of course not.

Re:The anthropic cop-out (5, Insightful)

caramelcarrot (778148) | more than 5 years ago | (#25220051)

It's not really a cop out if you can actually give the statistically biasing action. It is a bit of a cop out to just say "specialties make our sentient life possible (or much more probable)" but if you can quantify this, then it would be possible to quantify the experimental bias. The anthropic principle is a lot more rigorous than people give it credit for. Of course rare events are always possible, too.

Re:Being special (4, Interesting)

2names (531755) | more than 5 years ago | (#25219539)

Density distribution throughout the universe (ours, at least) is relative to the scale at which your measurements are made. Follow me here...

If you get far enough away from this universe, and I'm talking 'Douglas Adams' far, this universe would appear to be perfectly uniform. However, the closer your observation point becomes, the easier it is to distinguish the clumps, bumps, peaks, valleys, troughs, etc. in the density. At a very close, human-type scale, the density changes are very easy to spot. How dense is the space between the Earth and the Moon as compared to the Earth itself?

Re:Being special (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25219547)

I'll believe that there are regions of space that are more dense than others. I'll even believe that we are in one of them.

Although watching 15 minutes of Fox News would certainly give that impression, TFA states the opposite. We're living in a giant space as void of matter as what's between (m)Ann Coulters ears.

Re:Being special (2, Funny)

ksd1337 (1029386) | more than 5 years ago | (#25220383)

Nah, you meant to say Jack Thompson. The vacuum between his ears sucked in all the copies of Duke Nukem Forever, and we can't get them out now.

Re:Being special (4, Insightful)

LordNimon (85072) | more than 5 years ago | (#25219671)

Why is it so hard to believe? Let's say for instance I tell you that there is a one-in-a-million chance that a person will have a particular dream. Every night, 300 million Americans go to sleep. Would you find it hard to believe that at least one person has this dream every night?

And what if you were that one person last night? Would you think you were special? You would, if you were bad at math.

So why is it hard to believe that our planet exists in conditions that have incredibly low odds? The universe is not only more vast than anyone can imagine, it's also been around for over 13 billion years! For all you know, these "special conditions" you complain about could have happened a million times by now.

Re:Being special (4, Informative)

meringuoid (568297) | more than 5 years ago | (#25219699)

But what I find hard to believe is that we are in the exact center of such a region. So therefore, the universe should appear to have different properties in different directions. Has anybody seen that?

There's an unexplained anisotropy [wikipedia.org] in the cosmic microwave background. Hot and cold spots don't appear to be quite randomly distributed. Nobody's come up with a good explanation, and it might be an instrumentation error or due to some local gravitational anomaly - say, lensing around the next supercluster over - but at the moment it's very unclear.

Re:Being special (3, Insightful)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 5 years ago | (#25219779)

But what I find hard to believe is that we are in the exact center of such a region.

How exact do you think it has to be when we're talking about cosmic distances? Distances where being in the Milky Way vs Andromeda wouldn't make much difference in how the distant universe looked?

Re:Being special (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25219841)

. So therefore, the universe should appear to have different properties in different directions. Has anybody seen that?

Oh, but it does indeed! haven't you noticed that the universe is at daylight here but at night in China?

Re:Being special (2, Insightful)

ivandavidoff (969036) | more than 5 years ago | (#25219903)

Boy, and what an ultimate irony it would be if the center of the bubble isn't just Earth, but the exact location of Copernicus' grave.

Yes, this is clearly the answer. What we can observe of the universe does not jibe with what we THINK we SHOULD be observing; so, obviously, we are in the middle of an anomaly, outside of which the universe behaves the way we THINK it should behave.

Re:Being special (4, Insightful)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 5 years ago | (#25220025)

We need not be at the exact center. Closer to the center than to the edge would probably suffice.

Nor does ours need to be the only bubble: there could be billions of them. Thus we need not be unique: just not quite average (but then, being perfectly average would itself be unlikely).

Re:Being special (5, Interesting)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | more than 5 years ago | (#25220057)

You're believing something the opposite of what the premise of the article is. The premise of the article is that we are in a bubble containing a void, not a highly dense space.

I think we really need to restructure our underlying philosophy of what existence is. I've been chewing on this concept for years:

This "universe" isn't infinite. It's a 4 dimensional object, with a large but quantifiable amount of mass/energy, and this mass/energy has permutations across x, y, z and t. You see a 3 dimensional object with dimensions x, y, z moving through t, but observed from outside the t dimension, it's a 4 dimensional object.

The big bang, the singularity, is significant because at the moment that the mass/energy of the universe is in the singular state, it is identical to all the other universes. It is at this point that it "connects" to all the other universes, like petals connecting together to make a flower.

Questions of religion, spirituality and what it means to be human start getting in your way once you start looking at things this way. Am I an aspect of this object that is my universe, or am I some sort of traveler within this object that is a universe?

I think there's a good possibility that the missing matter and forces we hypothesize to be acting upon our universe are actually other universes influencing our own, like petals on a flower bumping into each other. And, assuming that we are "souls traveling within the universe" as opposed to "4 dimensional objects that are aspects of the universe", it isn't outside the bounds of reason to imagine that we might one day be able to map the shape of these universes and achieve "time travel" by moving to other universes.

I expect that we will eventually find the concept of the "infinite universe" to be a false path, and that we will achieve great breakthroughs when we find a framework that doesn't rely upon its existence.

Re:Being special (2, Informative)

khallow (566160) | more than 5 years ago | (#25220261)

I expect that we will eventually find the concept of the "infinite universe" to be a false path, and that we will achieve great breakthroughs when we find a framework that doesn't rely upon its existence.

Already happened. Our description of the laws of physics is local in nature and doesn't depend on the extent of the universe.

Re:Being special (4, Informative)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 5 years ago | (#25220121)

This is no harder than believing in dark matter and dark energy, and it's before breakfast

"Time is an illusion, lunchtime doubly so". -The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Re:Being special (1)

mshannon78660 (1030880) | more than 5 years ago | (#25220417)

Or more appropriately: If you've done six impossible things this morning, why not round it off with breakfast at Milliways, the Restaurant at the End of the Universe?" - Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Re:Being special (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25220275)

Who says we need to be in the exact center? The bubble could be so large that we just can't see the edge, heck we could be very very close to the edge of the bubble, but have no way of knowing if its that large.

I've seen it (1)

MosesJones (55544) | more than 5 years ago | (#25220295)

So therefore, the universe should appear to have different properties in different directions. Has anybody seen that?

I was just talking about this the other day when I was in B'tslashdoaut which is in a galaxy far far away. Oddly everything there looks like the universe was created out of cheese but that could be because of the unusual configurations of solid matter with grey holes (like black holes but not as bad) all over the place.

Re:Being special (3, Informative)

Artifakt (700173) | more than 5 years ago | (#25220341)

We don't necessarily have to be at or near the center of such a bubble, here's the conditions we might require:

1. We would have to somewhere be in a bubble that is much less dense than the actual average for the universe,
2. that bubble would have to be pretty uniformly less dense for the 12 Billion light year radius around us. It doesn't have to be exactly uniform, in fact one reason we might be able to detect it is if it isn't. The bubble doesn't have to be spherical, overall, or uniformly dense, overall, and the nature of the edge, where it becomes more like the rest of the universe is, is allowed some variation as well.
    (In fact, from what the original paper says so far, the center of the bubble could still be even less dense than our part, just so those lower density regions were more than the observable length away.)
    (If this hypothesis develops into a full fledged theory, we would probably be able at a minimum to confirm or reject the existence of even lower density regions, predict how thick the edges of the bubble are, and write an equation that describes how the density would go up, as hypothetically measured at different points in the edge.).
3. The bubble would have to be pretty big, bigger than the time it takes light to cross the entire part of the universe we can see. Since we estimate the universe is about 12 Billion years old, the edges of the bubble must be more than that number of light years away from our POV. But, we don't have to be equally near all edges.
      (We could still possibly see some effects from what is now farther away, because we can observe things such as the cosmic microwave background, that preserve data from the very early times when things were much closer together. We could also see the indirect effects of gravity on things we can see directly in the visible, Gamma or UV ranges).
4. We would have to be near enough to an edge in at least one direction that we could see the effects of those hypothetical average density regions that lie farther than 12 Billion light years away. That way, we may never be able to see them directly, but we can infer them from the parts we can see, so this becomes testable. So if the bubble is much bigger than 24 billion light years across, we must not be too near the center. The bigger the bubble is, the farther out from the center we would have to be to detect something, but that's still a pretty general requirement that we be somewhere in a pretty big volume, not really something improbable or requiring a particularly privledged viewpoint. Our view would be unusual, but not unique.
5. Near enough in point 4 depends on how swiftly the edge of the bubble changes to a more average density, and just what the average is, among other factors. Again, actually coming up with some more specific numbers is what will happen if this hypothesis gets developed into a more established theory. The researchers will calculate some combinations of overall size, rate of change at the edges, and density for the larger universe, and see if there are combinations that predict something we can observe to test them, while throwing out combinations that lead to conclusions contrary to what we can observe. Better yet, a lot of our existing observations can be used to swiftly develop this hypothesis - this is much more testable right now than, say, string theory.

So.. (1)

Corpuscavernosa (996139) | more than 5 years ago | (#25219309)

"If we lived in a very large under-density, then the space-time itself wouldn't be accelerating," said researcher Timothy Clifton of Oxford University in England. "It would just be that the observations, if interpreted in the usual way, would look like they were."

So... they're not then?

Bubble? (1, Redundant)

Vagnaard (1366015) | more than 5 years ago | (#25219331)

I don't know about cosmic bubbles... But I know of an economic one who just busted.

... I hope it doesn't happen to our galactic bubble...

Re:Bubble? (3, Funny)

explosivejared (1186049) | more than 5 years ago | (#25219619)

Dude, don't worry God will just be there with a 700 quadrillion ton slab of dark matter to bail... I mean patch the hole right up.

Re:Bubble? (1)

philspear (1142299) | more than 5 years ago | (#25219665)

No way man, we need to pop it so it doesn't get worse! Also, that's the perfect time to buy buy buy!

Re:Bubble? (1)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 5 years ago | (#25220243)

I don't know about cosmic bubbles... But I know of an economic one who just busted. ... I hope it doesn't happen to our galactic bubble...

If we could only stop the Galactic Deregulators.
           

Just to be sure... (1)

nameendingwith (1272536) | more than 5 years ago | (#25219409)

Are they sure they aren't just looking at the reflection in the side mirror?

Occam's Razor? (2, Insightful)

H0p313ss (811249) | more than 5 years ago | (#25219417)

I'll apply Occam's Razor [wikipedia.org] and ask which is more likely.

  • Are we in an unusual zone so we get unusual results?
  • Is there some unknown and mysterious matter that screws up our results?

Quite frankly I find both solutions rather silly, they sound a little too much like deus ex machina to me. I suspect the truth is still out there and when we understand it will change our view of the universe. It's happened before, it will happen again.

Re:Occam's Razor? (1)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 5 years ago | (#25219599)

The trouble with using Occam's Razor here is that we are talking about how matter and energy interact over very long distances. The scale of it is larger than seems probable for choosing simplest answers. It seems agreed that something is distorting our measurement of how things are working, but what that is may be difficult to discern while remaining within it's distortion field.

If indeed we are in a matter/gas/dust free bubble of space, it would rule out dark matter as the 'cataract' in the eyes of our science. Dark matter doesn't seem to be explaining everything either. A classic case of 4 blind men and an elephant.

Of course, if those are not acceptable, we can go with the fact that we see what we do because that is how the FSM wants it to be. Either that or the aliens are creating this illusion so they can keep studying us.

Re:Occam's Razor? (4, Interesting)

kisrael (134664) | more than 5 years ago | (#25219631)

My favorite alternative is that we need someone to do to Einstein what Einstein did to Newton; that just like Newton's laws are near-perfect and beautiful at reasonable speeds, maybe there's something that happens at cosmically grand distances, masses, or propagation delays for Gravity that we're going to have to be awfully clever to ever hope to reliably detect.

Dark Matter and Dark Energy both felt like big hacks to me.

But, I am by no means a scientist, just an interest layman who hasn't done enough reading.

Re:Occam's Razor? (2, Interesting)

R2.0 (532027) | more than 5 years ago | (#25220151)

"My favorite alternative is that we need someone to do to Einstein what Einstein did to Newton; that just like Newton's laws are near-perfect and beautiful at reasonable speeds, maybe there's something that happens at cosmically grand distances, masses, or propagation delays for Gravity that we're going to have to be awfully clever to ever hope to reliably detect."

Screw that - the reason Einstein needs to go down can be summed up in one word:

Starships.
(and not the lameass rock band, either)

Re:Occam's Razor? (2, Interesting)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 5 years ago | (#25220285)

you realize dark matter is simply the generic term applied to that missing mass we can't account for, not an actual explanation for it?

Re:Occam's Razor? (1)

philspear (1142299) | more than 5 years ago | (#25219735)

You say you'll apply Occam's razor, but then appear to reject both possibilities. I wasn't aware that Occam's razor said you could throw out any theories that sound a little too convenient.

Re:Occam's Razor? (1)

H0p313ss (811249) | more than 5 years ago | (#25219951)

You say you'll apply Occam's razor, but then appear to reject both possibilities. I wasn't aware that Occam's razor said you could throw out any theories that sound a little too convenient.

"the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible"

Re:Occam's Razor? (1)

mr_mischief (456295) | more than 5 years ago | (#25220279)

The problem is that Occam's Razor does not allow for mamiing fewer assumptions than possible.

If what we think we know to be true does not explain something we observe, then either there must be something unknown as well or we must be wrong about what we think we know.

Your assumption is that what we think we know is wrong. The dark matter, dark energy, and the sparse bubble folks are all putting forward theories and trying to validate them through experiments.

Re:Occam's Razor? (4, Informative)

philspear (1142299) | more than 5 years ago | (#25220351)

I thought it was for deciding between two or more competing theories. I didn't think it could be used to reject all theories. If you have two theories, one makes two assumptions, one makes just one, it's more likely to be the one that just makes one. While both may be wrong, you can't use Occam's razor to throw BOTH of them out.

Furthermore, you don't use it at all, or if you did, you forgot to tell us the outcome. You actually just say both sound like deus ex machina, are both silly, and we're not right yet. Didn't even mention any underlying assumptions. That's not Occam's razor, or even rational argumentation. You just have a gut instinct that they're both wrong.

Re:Occam's Razor? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25219849)

Well, whenever you notice something like that, a wizard did it.

Re:Occam's Razor? (1)

Timothy Brownawell (627747) | more than 5 years ago | (#25219997)

I suspect the truth is still out there and when we understand it will change our view of the universe. It's happened before, it will happen again.

What makes this difficult is that while it's out there, we're stuck down here.

3 questions (1)

globaljustin (574257) | more than 5 years ago | (#25220007)

I find this theory to be kind of specious myself...IANAA...so maybe some of you could help me out

space-time around us would be different than it is outside, because matter warps space-time. Light travelling from supernovae outside our bubble would appear dimmer, because the light would diverge more than we would expect once it got inside our void.

1. Light is affected by gravity...that's one way we find extra-solar planets...but how could it be affected in a way that it would make supernovae appear have less magnitude? Wouldn't it (the light) just wobble?

2. Also, how abnormally less-dense is our area (I hate that they call it a bubble...pocket maybe)? It seems that in order to be significant, it would have to be so abnormal that we would have noticed by now...

3. Lastly, these supernovae arent' the only thing we have that tells us the universe is expanding with acceleration, right? don't observations of the cosmic microwave background also lead us to conclude that the universe is accelerating and expanding? how could both these ideas be correct?

Re:Occam's Razor? (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 5 years ago | (#25220115)

> Are we in an unusual zone so we get unusual results?

If the universe is large enough there could be many such zones. If perhaps 10% of the mass in the universe is in such zones our being in one would not be particularly improbable.

"Average" is Not Normal (2, Insightful)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 5 years ago | (#25220195)

But the chance of being in a spot that is a perfect representation of the average is rather small. The chances of being in a spot of above-average density and a spot with below-average density may even be greater than being in an average spot. This is of course unless the spot is significantly below or above he average.

It's also possible that intelligence life is more likely to evolve in sparser areas. Dense areas may offer too much chaos for advanced life (multicellular) to take hold. Some speculate that dense space is the best place for life to get started but sparser areas are better for the long-term evolution needed for intelligent life. A dense area of space is more likely to be blasted by a central-galaxy black-hole jet or a supernova magnetically-focused gamma beam; which would fry all the mammals.

We known this for a long time (4, Informative)

Iowan41 (1139959) | more than 5 years ago | (#25219419)

At least as far as gas and dust are concerned. The Standard Model explanation is that a 'nearby' star (the pulsar Geminga) went supernova a good long time ago, and blasted a large bubble (300 ly across) of relatively gas and dust free space, called 'the Local Bubble', and our solar system is well within this bubble. The relationship between that and what is being discussed I do not know, for details haven't been provided even on such things as scale. Do a search on 'Local Bubble' and you will find a great deal of information about this.

Re:We known this for a long time (1)

fish_in_the_c (577259) | more than 5 years ago | (#25219861)

hey, couldn't the bubble of hot gas itself account for some kind of lensing effect?

Re:We known this for a long time (1)

frankie (91710) | more than 5 years ago | (#25220081)

To have a relative void large enough that it would distort observations by the right amount, I think you'd have to be talking about the scale of our galactic cluster (millions of LY), if not larger.

Re:We known this for a long time (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 5 years ago | (#25220179)

Much larger. Much, much larger. Much, much, much larger.

Re:We known this for a long time (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25220215)

This is different bubble. The Local Bubble is rather local (tens of parsecs across) and we can easily see gas outside of it. The bubble in the story could be bigger than the visible Universe (gigaparsecs across) and thus can be fundamentally untestable. Plus, null results (that we can't see outside of this gigantic bubble) make it even more unlikely because over- and underdensities are progressively rarer as they get bigger.

Large Hadron Collider can help us (2, Funny)

ilovesymbian (1341639) | more than 5 years ago | (#25219441)

Maybe the Large Hadron Collider can help us with this. The scientists can try to recreate this as well - after they fix the magnet issues.

That's the result of the last LHC (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25219447)

See, that didn't turn out so badly.

Paraphrasing the Monks of Teshuva... (1)

Spad (470073) | more than 5 years ago | (#25219453)

Oh, how conveniant, a theory about the universe that doesn't involve explaining dark energy. Get back to work!

Say what? (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 5 years ago | (#25219459)

Somebody's been watching this episode [wikipedia.org] way too many times.

Re:Say what? (2, Funny)

tibman (623933) | more than 5 years ago | (#25219751)

One of my Favorite episodes from all the Star Treks. Best part was that the time bubble around the planet prevented the inhabitants from communicating or interacting with the galaxy, their SETI program was ultimately a failure and they didn't understand why.

Re:Say what? (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 5 years ago | (#25219831)

One of my favorite is the one with the time ship that kept re-writing the history of a few sectors but Voyager got caught in the middle. Can't remember the season/episode but the captain of the time ship was the guy who played Red Foreman on That 70's Show.

Re:Say what? (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 5 years ago | (#25220039)

Or this one [wikipedia.org] or this one [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Say what? (1)

ChienAndalu (1293930) | more than 5 years ago | (#25220043)

Or this one [wikipedia.org] ?

Eureka! (1)

mfh (56) | more than 5 years ago | (#25219461)

Someone has finally explained Spooky Action [wikipedia.org] ... we are trapped in a void of low-density matter! Like Newton, on that fateful day, when the obvious idea of gravity suddenly cracked his noggin -- I think this is an obvious explanation to pretty much everything that has been perplexing science geeks for so long. Like Newton, we must make apple pie out of this painful discovery!

Now the important question is, what can we do with this new knowledge other than escape the bubble to realize our true freedom? Not much. Escape is the only answer! Oh and when we escape, it's important to only slightly crack the bubble, not shatter it, or the universe will collapse. (FYI)

Well, Yeah, no duh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25219481)

It's obvious that this is the explanation.

Are we in some kind a time loop / time DILATION... (2, Funny)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 5 years ago | (#25219567)

Are we in some kind a time loop / time DILATION FIELD. If we are we should use the ZPM powering it for other stuff.

The obvious answer is... (1)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | more than 5 years ago | (#25219637)

*We* are the people of Krikkit [wikipedia.org] and have been re-sealed in a Slo-Time envelope.

[ Hactar is God! ]

I concur and have the following questions. (3, Interesting)

scubamage (727538) | more than 5 years ago | (#25219657)

I like this theory. My questions are, if our known universe is a bubble/globule of matter floating in a larger void...

  1. Where are the other globules?
  2. What happens if we hit one?
  3. Where did the globules originate?
  4. Is that larger void a super-large globule itself inside a still larger void? If so, see questions 1-4.

Re:I concur and have the following questions. (1)

SBacks (1286786) | more than 5 years ago | (#25220205)

Where are the other globules?

Outside our light cone.

What happens if we hit one?

We won't. They're too far away and moving much too quickly for us to ever catch them, even if we were to travel at the speed of light.

Where did the globules originate?

The exact cause of this phenomena is still unclear and, in fact, may never be clear. The idea is that a rapidly expanding universe would have laws of physics unrelated to our current ones, so our understanding can only go back so far. (We're talking about the first few microseconds after the big bang)

Is that larger void a super-large globule itself inside a still larger void? If so, see questions 1-4.

Maybe?

Re:I concur and have the following questions. (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 5 years ago | (#25220235)

You've got it exactly backwards.

An observation and 2 question2 (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 5 years ago | (#25219741)

The question: if things only look farther away, does that make travel to other solar systems more likely? I mean, could that mean that, say, Alpha Centuri is less than the four light years away we think it is?

The second question may answer the first: how big is this bubble?

The observation: Further research will probably show this to be wrong (and I think it is), but AFAWK we are special in one way: we are the only planet in the universe that we know harbors life.

Re:An observation and 2 question2 (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | more than 5 years ago | (#25220129)

The observation: Further research will probably show this to be wrong (and I think it is), but AFAWK we are special in one way: we are the only planet in the universe that we know harbors life.

Operational phrase being "that we know". Note that most other planets harbouring life can probably make the same assertion, with the same validity.

Given, of course, that there are other planets harbouring life. But I'd hate to have to bet against life being found pretty much everywhere.

Re:An observation and 2 question2 (1)

SBacks (1286786) | more than 5 years ago | (#25220337)

The question: if things only look farther away, does that make travel to other solar systems more likely? I mean, could that mean that, say, Alpha Centuri is less than the four light years away we think it is?

There may be a slight effect at that short distance. However, we're talking about interglatic scale here. Its like saying "Mars may be closer than we think, so does that mean the cubical next to me may be closer as well"

The second question may answer the first: how big is this bubble?

BIG. Huge. Gigantic. Orders of magnitude larger than you can imagine.

Warning (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25219775)

Objects in telescope lens may be closer than they appear!

Clearly (1)

evil_neanderthal (1024405) | more than 5 years ago | (#25219783)

We're being quarantined.

On the plus side we're probably not in the path of any planned bypasses.

I thought . . . (1)

PapaSmurph (249554) | more than 5 years ago | (#25219845)

we live in an airport locker, like in MIIB [imdb.com] .

Excuses, excuses... (1)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 5 years ago | (#25219889)

Earth may be trapped in an abnormal bubble of space-time that is particularly void of matter. ...said George Brussard of games developer 3D Realms when asked about the possible release dates for Duke Nukem Forever.

I live in San Francisco (0, Offtopic)

josepha48 (13953) | more than 5 years ago | (#25219909)

.. so YES!

ROTFLOL

Earth inside a black hole (1)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 5 years ago | (#25219921)

I thought Slashdot had an article years ago about the possibility that our galaxy is actually inside a black hole. The cosmic microwave background radiation would then be even, produced by Hawking radiation. I forget the rest. Anybody know where that article is?

Re:Earth inside a black hole (1)

ZarathustraDK (1291688) | more than 5 years ago | (#25220097)

Funny, I had the same theory (really, no kidding).
The explanation is simple, cuts out unneeded theories (dark matter), explains why the universe is black, and opens up the possibility for "rebirth" of the universe through inversion while keeping the universe expanding at an accelerated rate through the accumulation of matter in the black hole(s).

Of course the universe would have to have a shape that allows for this. I propose a hypersaddle-shape with opposite corners connected in black holes (gotta have symmetry ;) ).

How big (1)

4D6963 (933028) | more than 5 years ago | (#25219979)

Hold on, how big is that bubble? Like 1,000 ly wide, or like billions of ly? If it's the former then I guess the entropic thing applies, i.e. it's unlikely such a small zone would be special, if it's the latter then I guess it's more likely to be a correct observation but on the other hand how would we know it doesn't just have to do with how long ago the stuff we observe out of the bubble happened?

Re:How big (1)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 5 years ago | (#25220015)

Erm... yes, but this amplifier goes up to 11.

What does Samantha Carter say about it? (1)

DJCouchyCouch (622482) | more than 5 years ago | (#25220067)

Otherwise, I don't believe it.

Okay, I'll go with Mackay in a pinch.

Giant Bubble? (0)

need4mospd (1146215) | more than 5 years ago | (#25220113)

I'm pretty sure we don't live inside Rosie O'Donnell.

Oh no! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25220143)

Oh no, not another bubble! Quick, sell Cosmos!

Maybe it's a warp bubble... (2, Funny)

UseTheSource (66510) | more than 5 years ago | (#25220353)

Dr. Crusher: "If there's nothing wrong with me, maybe there's something wrong with the universe!"

...

Dr. Crusher: "Here's a question you shouldn't be able to answer: Computer, what is the nature of the universe?"
Computer: "The universe is a spheroid region seven hundred and five meters in diameter."

Big bang (1)

jhines (82154) | more than 5 years ago | (#25220385)

So the big bang was a fart by the great maker. Glad we can't smell on a cosmic scale.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...