Beta
×

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!

Did Some Black Holes Survive the Big Bang?

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the in-the-beginning dept.

Space 188

astroengine writes "Could anything survive from one universe to the next, through a Big Crunch and resulting Big Bang? According to two researchers, a special class of pre-Big Bang black hole may have the ability to traverse the Big Bang singularity. The upshot is that there may be black holes that existed before the Big Bang knocking around in our modern universe. What's more, we might be able to detect them through the theorized gamma-ray burst produced when these pre-Big Bang black holes evaporate out of existence. But how would we distinguish between these black holes and the primordial black holes thought to be produced after the Big Bang? Well, that's just too confusing right now."

cancel ×

188 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Some did. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36031524)

Shaquanda, Diamond, and Maniqua all survived.

LOL nigger joke... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36031538)

What's next, grape soda?

Re:LOL nigger joke... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36031582)

The older black ho's ("ho's" in this case is not an apostrophe misuse, but an ebonic contraction of the word "holes")drink that other [wikipedia.org] drink made from grape...

Re:LOL nigger joke... (-1, Flamebait)

MrQuacker (1938262) | more than 3 years ago | (#36031616)

Its grape drank, bitch.

Re:Some did. (1)

_merlin (160982) | more than 3 years ago | (#36031608)

That was a gangbang they survived - not quite as dramatic as the big bang.

The only thing (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36031892)

The only thing to enter a black hole is the only thing to ever escape it. I mean, of course, the vaunted nigger dong.

Easy to distinguish... (5, Funny)

Tim the Gecko (745081) | more than 3 years ago | (#36031532)

Pre-existing black holes aren't covered by the Universe's health insurance.

Re:Easy to distinguish... (1)

Attack DAWWG (997171) | more than 3 years ago | (#36031768)

YOU LIE!

Re:Easy to distinguish... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36031984)

That is not true. Not true.

Re:Easy to distinguish... (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 3 years ago | (#36032456)

So you're saying that for contractual purposes, all black holes pre-existed the universe?

Who knew? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36031534)

I assumed the only black hole left was the one sucking all the brains from Donald Trump.

Re:Who knew? (2)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 3 years ago | (#36031822)

I assumed the only black hole left was the one sucking all the brains from Donald Trump.

Blackhole sucking void? That is a new concept.

Re:Who knew? (1)

Sulphur (1548251) | more than 3 years ago | (#36032690)

I assumed the only black hole left was the one sucking all the brains from Donald Trump.

Blackhole sucking void? That is a new concept.

Black holes can collide.

Current theory says the universe expands forever (2, Informative)

syousef (465911) | more than 3 years ago | (#36031552)

So there may not be multiple big bangs. In which case their ability to survive is moot.

Re:Current theory says the universe expands foreve (3, Informative)

TemperedAlchemist (2045966) | more than 3 years ago | (#36031660)

Current theory relies on very limited information. http://xkcd.com/605/ [xkcd.com]

Re:Current theory says the universe expands foreve (1)

slick7 (1703596) | more than 3 years ago | (#36032066)

Current theory relies on very limited information. http://xkcd.com/605/ [xkcd.com]

Limited how?

By what theories? The indigenous peoples have many theories of the universe. The Mayans, Incas, Egyptians, Babylonians, Sumerians, and their intelligent progenitors have many more. The history of the future is defined by the theories that are ignored.

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions [fapit.net] ? -RAH

Re:Current theory says the universe expands foreve (2)

rainmouse (1784278) | more than 3 years ago | (#36032588)

By what theories? The indigenous peoples have many theories of the universe. The Mayans, Incas, Egyptians, Babylonians, Sumerians, and their intelligent progenitors have many more.

Hate to be fussy, but careful with the use of theory. It's misinterpretation in this context is what people who believe in the supernatural cling to when discussing such things as the theory of evolution.

Theory: a well-established principle that has been developed to explain some aspect of the natural world. Theories have been typically tested repeatedly in many ways and have become widely accepted truth.

Hypothesis: Testable and informed predictions with supporting facts. What is expected to happen during a specific study.

The Mayans, Incas etc were more at the early conjecture stage, which is more of an opinion and without supporting evidence.

Re:Current theory says the universe expands foreve (0)

lgw (121541) | more than 3 years ago | (#36032668)

And below conjecture, below wild-ass guess, and below totally-made-up-shit, there's a speciel tier reseved for anything to do with the Cosmological Constant (or do they call that dark energy now?) inflationary theories,and stock market predictions.

Re:Current theory says the universe expands foreve (1)

sFurbo (1361249) | more than 3 years ago | (#36032714)

And electrons! Have you ever seen one? They're completetly made up, just a theoretical kludge.

Re:Current theory says the universe expands foreve (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36032302)

anyone who uses xkcd as a "citation needed" is dumber then someone that believes that the universe is closed or open.
It's a comic strip, not a scientific journal.

Re:Current theory says the universe expands foreve (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36031674)

Yes, but Wang's second postulate is like a cat with nine lives...

Re:Current theory says the universe expands foreve (1)

JockTroll (996521) | more than 3 years ago | (#36033326)

Is that cat alive, dead, or a combination or both?

Re:Current theory says the universe expands foreve (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36031766)

Your statement about the future is unrelated to the past. (Quickest QED ever! ;)

Anyway, the whole article is pseudo-scientific nonsense.
Talking about what was "before" the big bang, is like talking about what is north of the north pole. And I paraphrase Hawking here.
Time, according to our current theories, only started to exist with the big bang.
And I can say with a lot of certainty, that I can prove that not only was there no cause for it, but there couldn't even have been a cause, since causality/time was infinitely uncertain. No causality, no cause.

Re:Current theory says the universe expands foreve (1)

kvvbassboy (2010962) | more than 3 years ago | (#36031802)

Right. But, the article implies that at "0 + delta_t" seconds, where delta_t -> 0, there existed black holes. This will have a significant impact on how the universe expands.

Re:Current theory says the universe expands foreve (1)

Rockoon (1252108) | more than 3 years ago | (#36031804)

Indeed, and note that Hawking is talking not only of time, but of space too. Space-time could not exist before inflation.

Re:Current theory says the universe expands foreve (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36031842)

"Space-time could not exist before inflation." Not *this* space-time, definitely. It doesn't make sense to speak of "before" the big bang in the sense of "before" being a construction meaning "closer in time to the big bang than the present."

One theory posits that a sort-of mirror universe, where time and space are the 'negative' of time and space here, extend in the other direction from the big bang, going on forever (as t goes to -Inf). This isn't incompatible with the view that time starts with the big bang---there are simply two times, a positive and a negative one, that both start with the big bang.

Re:Current theory says the universe expands foreve (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36031934)

http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw94.html [washington.edu] -- reference (not the one I was looking for, but it is mentioned)

Some other ideas about different boundary conditions at t=0 may be found at these pages:
http://www.npl.washington.edu/npl/int_rep/dtime/node4.html [washington.edu] [conventional view]
http://www.space.com/4019-glimpse-time-big-bang.html [space.com]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7440217.stm [bbc.co.uk]
http://www.universetoday.com/15051/thinking-about-time-before-the-big-bang/ [universetoday.com]

"pseudo-scientific nonsense" is excessive (1)

billstewart (78916) | more than 3 years ago | (#36032438)

In the beginning, there was nothing, which then exploded.

The article is a newspaper report about some physics papers. Half of it's just fine (slight-post-Big-Bang black holes still being around is a perfectly reasonable concept.)

The other half apparently has at least some math to it and is trying to see what it implies, and while it's more likely to be wrong than right, unless you've gone and read the physics papers it's a bit excessive to call even that half of the article pseudo-scientific nonsense. I'm skeptical about it (after the previous universe's Big Crunch (speculative but not unpopular) there was nothing left (still ok), occupying no space because space itself no longer existed (still okayish), and that nothing had HOLES IN IT (or next to it or something), which sounds like a major stretch, but all of the scientific theories of the very early origins of the universe are pretty much of a stretch. It's something that's at least as falsifiable as any theory of the early Big Bang period.

Re:"pseudo-scientific nonsense" is excessive (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 3 years ago | (#36032688)

nothing had HOLES IN IT (or next to it or something), which sounds like a major stretch, but all of the scientific theories of the very early origins of the universe are pretty much of a stretch. It's something that's at least as falsifiable as any theory of the early Big Bang period.

It's a common misconception that the BBT says the universe came from nothing. It doesn't, it claims it came from a singularity. A singularity is not nothing, particularly when it has the entire universe compressed into it. Where the singularity came from is currently not part of the BBT, also the early part of the BBT relates to a time ~10e-37 seconds AFTER the singularity started to expand and is well established science compared to this idea.

Re:Current theory says the universe expands foreve (1)

rufty_tufty (888596) | more than 3 years ago | (#36033318)

"Talking about what was "before" the big bang, is like talking about what is north of the north pole."
Maybe, maybe not. If we find evidence for these black holes then it shows there was a before the big bang and we have to change our view of the universe accordingly. Until we look for the evidence we don't know, that's kind of the point of science.

Re:Current theory says the universe expands foreve (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36031942)

Expanding and accelerating. Perhaps the Big Bang didn't just start, but continues to this day. It just so happens that as each moment in time passes, the more warped and distorted the pace of time becomes the further you look back. That is to say, the pace of time is constantly moving forward as events take place. But from our perspective, it's constant. Can be a bit confusing, I know. Sorry.

go easy on the bong. (2)

mevets (322601) | more than 3 years ago | (#36032184)

If you don't you'll have Bruce Lee worked into this scenario...

Re:Current theory says the universe expands foreve (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 3 years ago | (#36032702)

Yes the BB continues to this day, that's how we know there was a big bang! Also time is relative, there is no universal timer tick.

Re:Current theory says the universe expands foreve (3, Interesting)

Mr. Underbridge (666784) | more than 3 years ago | (#36032774)

Just because this universe expands forever, doesn't mean its parent did. Could just be this particular universe is the end of the line of its lineage. So I think the question is still quite relevant.

In the name of Political Correctness... (1, Funny)

tetrahedrassface (675645) | more than 3 years ago | (#36031556)

We can't release a photo of this as it may incite other, more restive black holes into action.

huh (0)

Choin (2109624) | more than 3 years ago | (#36031560)

...What?

What primordial black holes? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36031570)

Primordial black holes produced after the Big Bang? How is that possible? I thought the biggest clump of matter that the big bang produced was lithium nuclei.

Re:What primordial black holes? (2)

dido (9125) | more than 3 years ago | (#36032662)

The theory goes that in the very early universe, temperatures and pressures were so high that even small fluctuations in the density of matter would have resulted in local regions becoming dense enough to collapse into black holes. The time period considered here is long before any nucleosynthesis occurred: in fact temperatures and pressures were so high in this period that the strong nuclear force is not yet able to confine quarks into hadrons.

These tiny primordial black holes [wikimedia.org] would not, contrary to popular conception, simply suck in everything around them. A typical black hole of this type would have a mass of about a billion tons (about the mass of a mid-sized asteroid), and have an event horizon smaller than the diameter of a proton. With mass that low its gravity would be correspondingly low and its interaction with normal matter very feeble. They should, however, be emitting large amounts of gamma rays if the theory of Hawking radiation is correct, and that might be one way that they'd be detected.

They all survive Big Bang!!!! (0)

syousef (465911) | more than 3 years ago | (#36031580)

...season to season. They're signed for something like 7 seasons. Even though the show has gone down hill it still has it's moments.

I think Johnny Galecki and Jim Parsons are going to be just fine post Big Bang, but if you've heard Kaley Cuoco's rendition of "Somewhere over the rainbow", you'll realise that her career is headed for a big a black hole once the show ends

black holes are gates to a other universes (-1, Redundant)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 3 years ago | (#36031604)

black holes are gates to a other universes.

Earth (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36031612)

EARTH HAS 4 CORNER
SIMULTANEOUS 4-DAY
TIME CUBE
IN ONLY 24 HOUR ROTATION.
4 CORNER DAYS, CUBES 4 QUAD EARTH- No 1 Day God.
******************
FREE SPEECH in AMERICA is
"BULL SHIT",
EVIL EDUCATORS
block and suppress
www.timecube.com.
You are educated evil,
and might have to kill
the evil ONE teaching
educators before you
can learn that 4 corner
days actually exist -but
all Cube Truth denied.
Dumb ass educators fear
me and hide from debate.
They are paid to teach a propaganda book - not
Cube Truth - for which
they would be fired. Evil
teachers betray students,
as ONE is a Death Value.
Cube 4x4 voids 1 & God.
USA ripe for holocaust.

I get it! (1)

MrQuacker (1938262) | more than 3 years ago | (#36031614)

The universe is actually a multidimensional doughnut, and black holes act as drains. Matter goes in, and exits on the other side of the doughnut, to repeat the cycle.

We just cant comprehend it because of the complexity of the multidimensionality of it all.

Re:I get it! (1)

Fractal Dice (696349) | more than 3 years ago | (#36031680)

It's a nice image, but do you have any proof? What does such a multiverse actually predict that we can measure?

Re:I get it! (1)

lasinge (1009929) | more than 3 years ago | (#36031794)

It sort of satisfies my curiousity of why there'd only be 3 apparent space dimensions if you will, and why only one time dimension which apparently only goes one way? Maybe we are in a special case of a much larger more multidimensional universe. Pure speculation of course, I admit that I have no more proof than the last guy, but it can't hurt to imagine.

Re:I get it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36031818)

How can we prove that time only goes one way? If we can prove that the speed of light isn't a universal constant then who are we to say that the rest of what we know of the universe isn't as flexible? Time goes which way it will for us because that is how our four-dimensional minds perceive it. The universe is just beginning to unfold its secrets to us and we have no real clue how anything works outside of our own perception of it.

Re:I get it! (1)

lasinge (1009929) | more than 3 years ago | (#36032104)

I used weasel words there, I didn't claim that time went one way using the word apparently. And proving that light isn't a universal constant would be a big if, but sure that would be a game changer for relativity now wouldn't it.

Re:I get it! (1)

mywhitewolf (1923488) | more than 3 years ago | (#36031868)

wouldn't it suggest sudden ejections of matter or energy? almost like the Hawkins radiation emitted by black holes?

Re:I get it! (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 3 years ago | (#36032034)

Or, all the black holes tie back to one dimension. A dimension that's the start of another big bang. Once all the matter has been sucked in, and then the black holes themselves consolidate...the dimensional walls collapse and...BOOM! The cycle of cosmic rebirth begins anew.

Re:I get it! (1)

aaronfaby (741318) | more than 3 years ago | (#36032110)

Mmmm.. donut.....

Old old news (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36031656)

Read A Brief History of Time. Dated 1988
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Brief_History_of_Time

Or this guy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_M._Carroll#From_Eternity_To_Here

Either way, this is OLD news

question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36031684)

Wasn't the "Big Crunch" itself a black hole?
So, can black holes explode?
Anyone ever see one explode?

Re:question (2)

mywhitewolf (1923488) | more than 3 years ago | (#36031778)

IMO for the big bang theory and the singularity concept to work this should be observable.

its also possible that a black hole is the threshold where space inverts, so inside a black hole is the opposite of outside, so what we perceive as the big bang is actually the creation of a black hole in the inverse space. and we are possibly inside a giant black hole, which would explain the background gamma radiation. this also allows for an oscillating universe which gives more support to the very nature of existence being independent of observation and frame-reference.

but what would i know? i dropped out of high school in year 10.

Re:question (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 3 years ago | (#36032514)

Wasn't the "Big Crunch" itself a black hole?

No. A black hole is a singularity surrounded by an horizon, with space outside. The Big Crunch is a singularity, but where's the horizon and the outside space?

Way to survive the "Big Crunch"? (3, Interesting)

wisebabo (638845) | more than 3 years ago | (#36031712)

So, if one model of the universe (currently out if favor) is correct that has it oscillating between big bangs and big crunches, would this be a way for sone super civilization to survive the end (big crunch) of the universe? The "Heechee" in Frederick Pohl's Gateway novels had them hiding out in black holes (though not for this reason). They were hiding out from another even more advanced race that had created the universe (which explained why the cosmological constant amongst other things was so finely tuned) and didn't want to be around when they came back to reclaim their "property".

The Heechee had some way as well of getting OUT of these black holes (FTL travel?). Of course since the the latest models show the universe to be expending itself to smithereens even if you could hide out in a black hole, it is likely there would be literally nothing to come back to.

By the way, does time stop completely below the event horizon? Might be another reason why hiding out in a black hole wouldn't be such a good idea.

Way to survive the "Big Blender"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36031738)

Information could survive from one universe transition to another in the form of laws.

Re:Way to survive the "Big Blender"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36032276)

> Information could survive from one universe transition to another in the form of laws.

In fact, that might be where some of the RIAA related ones came from.

Re:Way to survive the "Big Crunch"? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#36032182)

By the way, does time stop completely below the event horizon? Might be another reason why hiding out in a black hole wouldn't be such a good idea.

Some say you eventually experience falling into it for eternity. If there really is a quantum unit of time and that's not merely a perceptual thing then you might be able to get stuck "forever". On the other hand, if there isn't, then you can decide any time to pop back out if you have the technology.

Re:Way to survive the "Big Crunch"? (1)

caywen (942955) | more than 3 years ago | (#36032294)

Maybe, but they'd never survive the Coming of the Great White Handkerchief

Re:Way to survive the "Big Crunch"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36032298)

There is a 'shell' of event horizon around the center of a black hole.
You might pass the event horizon- without even knowing it!
Unfortunately spaghettification would happen before getting to the singularity.
It would only appear to an outside observer that time stopped for you, and you would appear to fall into it forever, when you might be sharing shots of Jameson with the Hechee.

Re:Way to survive the "Big Crunch"? (-1, Redundant)

Required Snark (1702878) | more than 3 years ago | (#36032530)

The HeeChee are science fiction, in case you hadn't noticed. Using them to postulate about actual physics isn't very meaningful.

Re:Way to survive the "Big Crunch"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36033110)

go suck a dick, aspie

Re:Way to survive the "Big Crunch"? (2)

vegiVamp (518171) | more than 3 years ago | (#36033142)

Just like Clarke writes science fiction? The whole idea of sf is to postulate about what might be possible.

Re:Way to survive the "Big Crunch"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36032618)

There is a lot of secret math in Pohl's Gateway.

Time is subjective. To you it flows its normal course. The relativistic features you're thinking about involve people in different frames of reference. If you are in a widely different frame of reference from someone who matters to you, then it might matter - but that would be lack of foresight.

Re:Way to survive the "Big Crunch"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36032772)

By the way, does time stop completely below the event horizon?

In real (as opposed to sci-fi) physics, there's no way to get any information from below the event horizon. So there's no way to ever answer this question - and so the question is meaningless.

Re:Way to survive the "Big Crunch"? (1)

Scarletdown (886459) | more than 3 years ago | (#36033284)

Survive the Big Crunch? Impossible. There is absolutely no way to survive a Big Crunch. [youtube.com]

Great. Now I'm hungry.

Re:Way to survive the "Big Crunch"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36033336)

By the way, does time stop completely below the event horizon? Might be another reason why hiding out in a black hole wouldn't be such a good idea.

As I understand it, time doesn't stop anywhere, But time for one person, as observed by another, can appear to stop. As seen from the outside, time for the infalling person appears to slow and stop as they hit the event horizon. But for the person falling in, time continues to pass as always. If they can avoid the other unpleasant effects of black holes (spaghettification etc), they continue to fall "normally". It is just that they are in a different spacetime from which they can never (under current physics) send any form of message back to the spacetime they had come from. In the rubber sheet model, the depression formed by the black hole has "nipped off" and they are in an isolated bubble of universe with its own independent clocks. Current physics can make no coherent statement about the relationship of time in the two spaces

Intriguing .. (1)

w0mprat (1317953) | more than 3 years ago | (#36031730)

Could the supermassive black holes that likely exist in the centre of galaxies be these mutli-universe spanning black holes? If they survivied one big crunch, perhaps not allowing enough time for hawking evaporation, have they survived many universes?

Civilization survival? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36031746)

I wonder if some type 4 civilizations could survive in the event horizon of such a black hole from the end of one universe to the next.

THE most important question... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36031774)

Where, in these comments, is that new account troll who posts shortened URLs to his page with the gaytube embed?

Well it figures... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36031808)

I guess Durandal really did figure out a way to escape the collapse onboard the Manus Celer Dei.

why is it (5, Funny)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#36031876)

that i can never tell the difference between cosmology and the ramblings of a stoner?

Re:why is it (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 3 years ago | (#36031992)

Because first you must get high to become one with the universe. Only then will it all start to make sense.

Re:why is it (0)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#36032014)

look at my hands... our hands, human hands... did you ever actually look at your hands before? no i mean, really LOOK at them?

Re:why is it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36032088)

double dream hands?

Re:why is it (2)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#36032084)

I really wish people would stop glorifying drug use like that. If you really want to get in touch with the universe there's better ways than that, ones which don't leave you brain damaged afterwards. Sure drugs can hit those spots of the brain that make you think you've met God, but seriously, is it really worth it when you consider the harm that a lot of those drugs do?

-1 buzzkill. (2)

mevets (322601) | more than 3 years ago | (#36032216)

Its hardly glorifying it to associated with this fairy tale. But maybe you should try a bud or two sometime.

Just say Perhaps.

Re:why is it (2)

vegiVamp (518171) | more than 3 years ago | (#36033156)

Like alcolhol, nicotine and caffeine, you mean?

Re:why is it (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36033238)

"The illegality of cannabis is outrageous, an impediment to full utilization of a drug which helps produce the serenity and insight, sensitivity and fellowship so desperately needed in this increasingly mad and dangerous world." - Carl Sagan

I really wish people would stop degrading the reputation of all drugs like you just did. Is it really worth being such a square, when you consider all the things you miss out on?

Re:why is it (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36033486)

go show me the evidence that cannabis use damages the brain please. Because all the reports in recent years have been showing the exact opposite.

Re:why is it (1)

Esion Modnar (632431) | more than 3 years ago | (#36032096)

Where do you think Carl Sagan got most of his ideas?

Re:why is it (2)

md65536 (670240) | more than 3 years ago | (#36032400)

Slashdot?

Re:why is it (2)

Sulphur (1548251) | more than 3 years ago | (#36032546)

Where do you think Carl Sagan got most of his ideas?

Billions and billions of Slashdots.

Re:why is it (2)

TrekkieGod (627867) | more than 3 years ago | (#36032106)

[why is it] that i can never tell the difference between cosmology and the ramblings of a stoner?

Because you haven't studied the field, so all you get are explanations meant for the layman?

Seriously, if someone were to have shown you a page with differential equations back when the math you knew was limited to arithmetic would you be able to distinguish it from a page containing random symbols that looked math-like? Would you be able to tell which one represented something real and which one was BS? Well, the stoner ramblings is like the random page, and someone trained in physics and astronomy can tell the difference easily (although maybe not by the media summary, they often mangle things pretty badly).

Re:why is it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36032642)

It is all BS. Everything we humans have even known has been wrong. Why would we be correct this time? The stoner ramblings are just as likely to be true.

Is that code for a new position not in kamasutra? (1)

youn (1516637) | more than 3 years ago | (#36031940)

but maybe I got this wrong :)

Looong inhale.... (4, Funny)

Oligonicella (659917) | more than 3 years ago | (#36031960)

and hold.

<tight>"Like, man. Maybe our universe is only a little speck in so other universe?"</tight>

Exhale.

"Dude. Wouldn't it be funny if we like wrote that up as a paper or something?"

Thus stands most cosmological theory.

Re:Looong inhale.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36033004)

Yeah it's some good shit, isn't it?

Subject line here. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36032018)

This gives me hope, life could actually continue bang to bang if technology were sufficiently advanced before the collapse..

Stupid (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36032042)

That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

Some people get paid too much to think about useless things.

Meaning is important here (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36032100)

A singularity is just a place where the math breaks. In other words, god only knows what the hell happened at the singularity -- all we can do is look where it's not. Since we're on this side of the Big Bang singularity, all we can look at is events inside a light cone constrained by our position, the current time, and the age of the universe since the Big Bang.

Short version, their question is more philosophy than cosmology.

Tolkien anyone? (1)

Lord of the Fries (132154) | more than 3 years ago | (#36032136)

...
One Hole to rule them all, One Hole to find them,
One Hole to bring them all and in the blackness bind them
Before the Big Bang where the Shadows lie.

lol. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36032160)

what hole COULD survive a banging of that magnitude? :)

Rabelais (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36032778)

In Gargantua and Pantagruel Rabelais suggests replacing the walls of Paris with the personal part of the Parisian women, because they are strong enough to withstand anything. (He was a doctor as well as a Franciscan).

I did (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36032512)

What you consider the known universe is very small. Consider all the matter that was in the big bang, and for scale imagine it as a basketball. 100 miles away in space there is another "universe" that had it's own big bang. These are everywhere. Those of us who lived to the end of the "universe" moved to this one to survive the collapse of ours.

Slowly these "universes" are being pulled inches closer to eachother, but there's still several hundred trillion years before the actual universe collapses into itself. Your universe is just one of many that are scattered everywhere.

And yes, you humans are alone in your "universe". But you aren't alone in the universe.

I thought there was no "before" the big bang (1)

SmilingBoy (686281) | more than 3 years ago | (#36032880)

I always thought that time was only created with the Big Bang - so how can there be a "before"?

Black holes? (1)

miffo.swe (547642) | more than 3 years ago | (#36032936)

I think its a pretty bold theory considering black holes arent even proven to exist yet. I think many of these questions wont be answered until someone can come up with a better understanding of gravity.

it is a error -www.yipsun.com (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36032950)

It is a error. .
  to be or not to be .. It makes so manypeople so sad

Iphone 4: 260 USD (0)

addtostock3 (2113030) | more than 3 years ago | (#36033134)

http://www.addtostock.com/ [addtostock.com] Apple mac books: 280- 520 USD Iphone 4: 260 USD Ipad 2 64gb + wifi + 3G : 330 USD New Ipod touch 64gb: 120 USD Dell Alienware M17x: 700 USD Dell Alienware M15x: 500 USD MacBook Pro ( MC024 LL/A )17-inch 2.66GHz Intel Core i7: 510 USD MacBook Pro ( MC373 LL/A )15.4-inch 2.66GHz Intel Core i7: 485 USD BlackBerry Pearl 3G 9105: 350 USD Nikon F 6 - SLR camera - 35mm: 685 USD Nikon D3000 (with 18mm-55mm and 55mm-200mm lens): 315 USD Nikon D3X : 985 USD Canon EOS 5D Mark: 565 USD Playstation 3 PS3 Metal Gear Solid 4 80GB Bund: 220 USD

Big Crunch? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36033246)

Do you mean the Gnab Gib?

Yo, Dawg (1)

Megane (129182) | more than 3 years ago | (#36033304)

I heard you like singularities, so I put some black holes in your black holes so you can big bang while you big bang.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?