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!

Does the Higgs Boson Reveal Our Universe's Doomsday?

Soulskill posted about a year and a half ago | from the keep-calm-and-carry-on dept.

Science 421

astroengine writes "If calculations of the newly discovered Higgs boson particle are correct, one day, tens of billions of years from now, the universe will disappear at the speed of light, replaced by a strange, alternative dimension one theoretical physicist calls boring. 'It may be that the universe we live in is inherently unstable and at some point billions of years from now it's all going to get wiped out. This has to do with the Higgs energy field itself,' Joseph Lykken, with the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Batavia, Ill., said. 'This calculation tells you that many tens of billions of years from now there'll be a catastrophe.'"

cancel ×

421 comments

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

Meh. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42949035)

Nothing of value will be lost.

Re:Meh. (1)

DickBreath (207180) | about a year and a half ago | (#42949419)

The sun will be lost. It will explode before the universe does.

Nay doomsayer... (4, Insightful)

rmdingler (1955220) | about a year and a half ago | (#42949547)

I am so tired of the 'Mankind's existence is valueless' bravado. We are a billion to one galactic coincidence that has risen to sentient thought and self-awareness. This astronomical concurrence alone is worthy of continuance. If we finally evolve beyond primal tribal and religious bickering, we can get on with off planet settlements... and we have still a cushion of ten billion years to settle other galaxies.

Doomsday News (5, Funny)

Niterios (2700835) | about a year and a half ago | (#42949037)

News and science channels never waste a second when it comes to predicting doomsday.

Re:Doomsday News (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42949113)

That is at least one thing they have in common with bigots.

Just More BS from Physicists Looking for Funding (-1, Troll)

qbitslayer (2567421) | about a year and a half ago | (#42949517)

This is just more chicken feather voodoo physics from a bunch of crackpots and con artists within the physics community who are facing the prospect of seeing their funding reduced. This is complete BS in the not even wrong category. Physicists are completely clueless as to the nature of the universe. Under the assumption that everybody else is just as clueless as they are, they feel they can safely conjure BS as of thin air and sell it to a credulous public as bona fide science. But not everybody is stupid.

Here is a simple test that will prove that physicists like Joseph Lykken are clueless. Ask any physicist, what causes a body in relative inertial motion to remain in motion? I guarantee you will come face to face with either ignorance or outright superstition. If physicists don't even know what causes motion (their denials notwithstanding), how valid are their pronouncements about the birth and demise of the universe? Not very much, in my opinion.

Well, that's a lot of time to wait (2)

staltz (2782655) | about a year and a half ago | (#42949045)

No worries, folks.

No (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42949057)

Re:No (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42949307)

you do realize that this is a place for discussion so headlines that provoke conversation and debate are appropriate?

Re:No (5, Funny)

OakDragon (885217) | about a year and a half ago | (#42949539)

you do realize that this is a place for discussion so headlines that provoke conversation and debate are appropriate?

No.

Crap! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42949065)

What's congress going to do about it?!

Re:Crap! (2)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | about a year and a half ago | (#42949223)

Same as everything else - nothing, nothing at all - then get into a huge argument about something completely unrelated and mind-bogglingly unimportant.

Re:Crap! (4, Insightful)

NotQuiteReal (608241) | about a year and a half ago | (#42949379)

You could do worse than nothing. Often they do the wrong thing instead.

Re:Crap! (2)

iamgnat (1015755) | about a year and a half ago | (#42949511)

Same as everything else - nothing, nothing at all - then get into a huge argument about something completely unrelated and mind-bogglingly unimportant.

Sadly you are wrong. They will conveniently leave the "billions of years from now" part out and stir up fear so that they can funnel more money that we don't have into whomever's pockets that bought them dinner the previous night in the name of preventing the end of the universe.

And if they can spin it so it's the "terrorists" that will be ending the universe, well then there is just no stopping them...

I'd like to say the sarcasm tags should be implied there, but I'm not at all sure at least one senator/representative won't try it...

Re:Crap! (4, Funny)

camperdave (969942) | about a year and a half ago | (#42949377)

How about they keep their cotton picking nose out of it for once. They are the arrogant branch of a dysfunctional government of a petty country on a backwater planet circling an unregarded yellow star in the unfashionable arm of a rather ordinary spiral galaxy. This is quite plainly out of their jurisdiction.

Re:Crap! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42949577)

Whatever they decide, I'm sure it will cost billions...

Get in line (5, Insightful)

crazyjj (2598719) | about a year and a half ago | (#42949077)

Jesus rapturing us up, meteors wiping us out, the sun expanding into a red giant, the heat death of the universe--take your goddamn pick.

Re:Get in line (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42949121)

You forgot 'us blowing ourselves up'. That one's much more imminent than the rest of them combined.

(The captcha on this one is 'practice' - strangely fitting)

Re:Get in line (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42949585)

Personally, my favorite is masturbation

Re:Get in line (2)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about a year and a half ago | (#42949135)

If I get to pick, I'm gonna go with hookers and blow. Boil yourself into atomic bits if you like, I'll take the low road.

Re:Get in line (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42949605)

here here!! You got any?

Re:Get in line (1)

Carewolf (581105) | about a year and a half ago | (#42949615)

If I get to pick, I'm gonna go with hookers and blow. Boil yourself into atomic bits if you like, I'll take the low road.

We were talking about our Universe's Doomsday. It would have to be some pretty sucky hookers if they are going to blow the universe.

Re:Get in line (2)

tmosley (996283) | about a year and a half ago | (#42949203)

I read that as "Jesus raptoring up", and smiled.

Raptor Jesus went extinct for our sins.

Re:Get in line (3, Funny)

jhoegl (638955) | about a year and a half ago | (#42949469)

So you are saying there is a raptor zombie Jesus?

Seriously? (-1, Troll)

Murdoch5 (1563847) | about a year and a half ago | (#42949079)

I like physics and I like some quantum theory but calculating that in 10 billion years the universe will disappear hardly seems important. At least if the math did show this odd ball fact then why not just disregard it. At some point the "hunt" for these special quantum particles is going to go to far and lead us into an area we as of now don't know we don't want to enter. Can't we just stop this discovery period and go about fixing the current issues in the world.

Re:Seriously? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42949151)

What is your proposed solution? Abandon modern science and move back into caves? Call me up when you get ANY traction on that plan.

Re:Seriously? (5, Funny)

d33tah (2722297) | about a year and a half ago | (#42949193)

...oh wait, he won't be able to.

Re:Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42949197)

I'm afraid there's plenty of support for that plan...

Re:Seriously? (5, Insightful)

TFAFalcon (1839122) | about a year and a half ago | (#42949181)

How do you know we don't want to enter it? It could just as easily be the best thing that ever happened to mankind. And how would stopping discoveries help to fix the world? Help it revert back to the dark ages (after fossil fuels run out)?

Re:Seriously? (5, Insightful)

MightyYar (622222) | about a year and a half ago | (#42949209)

Can't we just stop this discovery period and go about fixing the current issues in the world.

Ignorance is a "current issue".

Re:Seriously? (5, Insightful)

Baloroth (2370816) | about a year and a half ago | (#42949233)

At some point the "hunt" for these special quantum particles is going to go to far and lead us into an area we as of now don't know we don't want to enter. Can't we just stop this discovery period and go about fixing the current issues in the world.

What? Are you seriously proposing that we stop doing scientific research? Yes, of course, what happens 10 billion or more years from now is completely irrelevant to us as individuals. It might be relevant to our species, however, and the physics behind it is relevant always. Pretty much all of our technology is based on research like this that was once considered merely of academic interest. Who knows, maybe we could discover how to travel to other galaxies by manipulating the Higgs field. We won't know until we try. And it's improbable that anything we invent will be all that much worse than the nuclear or chemical weapons that already exist.

And it's not a dichotomy: we don't have to stop physics research to solve all our current issues in the world. In fact, it wouldn't even help to do so. At all.

Re:Seriously? (0)

Murdoch5 (1563847) | about a year and a half ago | (#42949335)

At least you clearly pointed out what I first said, 10 billion years is the issue. If you can do scientific research that can assist the world in a decade, two decades or even 50 years then go ahead, if your doing research that has an expected date of 10 billion years then your wasting time.

Re:Seriously? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42949473)

There's a very good chance that solving how to prevent the end of the universe, or how to survive in/after it, will produce some very other interesting things as a side effect. That's how science works.

Re:Seriously? (5, Informative)

pla (258480) | about a year and a half ago | (#42949243)

I like physics and I like some quantum theory but calculating that in 10 billion years the universe will disappear hardly seems important.

I wouldn't put too much stock in that number - More like one of those things that could already have happened and we just haven't noticed yet, or might not happen for trillions of years.

As a better way to think about it, take a 6 pack of bottled soda and leave it somewhere just below freezing for a few days. About half of the bottles won't have frozen. If you then open one of the non-frozen ones... Or set it down too hard, or give it a whack with a spoon, you can literally watch it freeze over about 5-10 seconds as a wave of ice sweeps out from one spot (the cap / the bottom / where you whacked it). It does this because supercooled water exists in an unstable state but just hasn't figured out how to freeze yet.

Same idea here, except on a universal scale. At some point, one tiny spot in our universe will "figure out" how to reconfigure itself into a more stable universe. That spot will then expand through the rest of the universe at the speed of light.

Re:Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42949515)

Very good explaination! But I beleive you need a car reference to explain things on Slashdot. You should forget the 6 pack in your car over the weekend. When you hit a bump it freezes.

Re:Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42949281)

I like physics and I like some quantum theory but calculating that in 10 billion years the universe will disappear hardly seems important.

At least the prediction is testable (and hence, scientific) unlike the popular science descriptions of what happens to an astronaut falling into a black hole.

Re:Seriously? (4, Insightful)

bamberg (9311) | about a year and a half ago | (#42949303)

Nope. This kind of discovery, pushing the frontiers of knowledge, is the only thing we as a species do that's of any value. Spending all of our effort trying to "fix[...] the current issues of the world" would just drag us down to the lowest common denominator.

Let the current issues of the world fix themselves or die trying.

Re: Seriously? (3, Insightful)

cgenman (325138) | about a year and a half ago | (#42949445)

It's a fun bit of trivia that draws headlines and can be used to talk to kids about the destruction of the sun, death by meteor, and other fun apocalypses. And who knows: maybe Boson Degredation can be detected somehow, like carbon dating.

Science isn't supposed to be useful. That's engineering. Science is supposed to be insightful in unexpected ways, leading to more understanding.

Re: Seriously? (1)

Murdoch5 (1563847) | about a year and a half ago | (#42949543)

Thats a good point!

Re:Seriously? (2)

c0lo (1497653) | about a year and a half ago | (#42949499)

He said the parameters for our universe, including the Higgs mass value as well as the mass of another subatomic particle known as the top quark, suggest that we're just at the edge of stability, in a "metastable" state. Physicists have been contemplating such a possibility for more than 30 years. Back in 1982, physicists Michael Turner and Frank Wilczek wrote in Nature that "without warning, a bubble of true vacuum could nucleate somewhere in the universe and move outwards at the speed of light, and before we realized what swept by us our protons would decay away."

These seem to imply:
1. a Higgs boson is a metastable state, would decay in top quark
2. the half-life of this metastable state is billions of years
3. the moment even a single such decay event happens, the other Higgs bosons around would "sense" this and spontaneously decay as well, in a sort of chain reaction happening in a Laser medium

If assumption 3 is valid, then 1. and 2. say it can happen any time (with very low probability, but not impossible)

But, I wonder, what exactly suggest that 3. is a valid assumption? For example, not all spontaneous fission reactions that we know of are chain reactions.

Re:Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42949501)

Please please please castrate yourself and anyone related to you.

In before (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42949093)

Betteridge

Oh no! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42949105)

Think of our children's children's children's children's children's children's...

Re:Oh no! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42949351)

I own a copy of that album, on vinyl... The Moody Blues, right?

Not a problem (3, Interesting)

gweihir (88907) | about a year and a half ago | (#42949115)

If you get reincarnated, it is likely not in this universe anyways (there are more people alive at the moment that have died, ever, so they have had their last lives likely not here, as this will hold for any other planets as well at some time). So no worries.

If you do not get reincarnated, even less of a problem.

Still, fascinating physics!

Re:Not a problem (3, Insightful)

hedwards (940851) | about a year and a half ago | (#42949169)

This post shows a distinct lack of knowledge about the subject.

Whether or not reincarnation is real, the idea is that people get reincarnated as people and any sort of living creature that exists. So, there's no need to be enough humans at any given time for the idea to hold, as long as there are enough living things. What's more it's been accepted theory for many centuries that only a very small fraction ones incarnations are as humans, most of the time it's as things like ants and spiders.

Or, that's the theory anyways, reincarnation is really more of a framework than a thing. It's not intended to be the driving force for ones life, just a framework for understanding how to live life in the context of the greater picture. You don't burn down the world because previous generations didn't and you have an obligation to future generations as well.

Theory (5, Insightful)

fyngyrz (762201) | about a year and a half ago | (#42949301)

What's more it's been accepted theory for many centuries

It would appear that you don't know what the word "theory" means. You used it where you more properly should have used "ridiculous, evidence free, superstitious presumption."

You're welcome. :)

Re:Not a problem (0)

HPHatecraft (2748003) | about a year and a half ago | (#42949423)

Read everything you said, and I have to tell you that being reincarnated as Burt Reynolds was probably the best one. It was hot grits and Natalie Portman 24/7, buddy!

Re:Not a problem (2)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | about a year and a half ago | (#42949441)

What's more it's been accepted theory for many centuries that only a very small fraction ones incarnations are as humans, most of the time it's as things like ants and spiders.

If you're talking about Buddhism, this isn't true. Reincarnation as an animal would be the result of a life badly lived, and it's almost impossible to get back up the ladder.

Re:Not a problem (1)

Kremmy (793693) | about a year and a half ago | (#42949249)

As we humans increase our numbers, we are causing the extinction of countless other forms of life. We're constantly finding that the reasons we consider other life to be inferior or different are plainly false. I see no reason the reincarnating souls would not stretch among all forms of life, making a closed planet-side system entirely possible.

Re:Not a problem (5, Informative)

Znork (31774) | about a year and a half ago | (#42949277)

The idea that more people are alive than have died is an urban myth; if you google it, estimates are that about 100 billion people have lived and died over the last 50k years. So we're outnumbered by dead people by quite a bit.

Re:Not a problem (1)

Mikkeles (698461) | about a year and a half ago | (#42949583)

True, but many more scientists are alive than have died; so: become a scientist and live forever!

Re:Not a problem (1)

pla (258480) | about a year and a half ago | (#42949299)

If you get reincarnated, it is likely not in this universe anyways (there are more people alive at the moment that have died, ever, so they have had their last lives likely not here, as this will hold for any other planets as well at some time). So no worries.

Now, imagine a new universe expanding inside our own at the speed of light. It hits Earth - We reincarnate somewhere else. It hits there - We reincarnate somewhere else. And so on...

At some point, you will have every entity in the universe trying to reincarnate on the last habitable chunk of dirt in the universe. We'd better hope sentient rabbits exist out there somewhere!

Sure (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42949127)

"Does the Higgs Boson Reveal Our Universe's Doomsday?"

Yeah, probably.

bizzare (5, Funny)

darkob (634931) | about a year and a half ago | (#42949137)

So Douglas Adams nailed it when he wrote that the universe would be replaced with something bizzare, whereas others believe that it alreaty happened.

Re:bizzare (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42949347)

Maybe someone will build a time traveling restaurant where the guests can observe this event while dining?

Re:bizzare (1)

ericloewe (2129490) | about a year and a half ago | (#42949371)

In a way, if you replace "universe" with "our view of the universe", it's been true for quite some time...

jesus, what a shitty first article (1)

hamburger lady (218108) | about a year and a half ago | (#42949155)

something catastrophic could happen! yeah, crazy. catastrophic. what is it? well, it's bad. in the future. wow, what a problem! but it's boring. it's totally boring.

seriously, could it be more generic? at least the nbc article mentions a false vacuum event. christ.

Re:jesus, what a shitty first article (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42949369)

So I looked at the Wikipedia article for false vacuums, but I am still having some trouble grasping the concept. Can I get a car analogy on this one?

How is this different than Big Bang standard model (1, Informative)

Midnight_Falcon (2432802) | about a year and a half ago | (#42949163)

Under the Big Bang theory, the universe will eventually collapse in on itself, likely at the speed of light. The tell-tale sign will be redshift instead of blueshift being observed from Earth to various astronomical bodies. What I'd like to ask is how does this change our understanding of the ultimate fate of our universe?

Re:How is this different than Big Bang standard mo (5, Informative)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | about a year and a half ago | (#42949315)

The big bang theory does not require a collapse. It allows that as a possibility, but does not require it as an outcome.

Re:How is this different than Big Bang standard mo (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42949337)

I thought the Big Bang Theory was going to end with Penny and Leonard's Wedding. Or possibly the birth of Sheldon and Amy's alien love-child.

Re:How is this different than Big Bang standard mo (1)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about a year and a half ago | (#42949355)

It does sound pretty similar to all the models I have heard of.
1) collapse in on it self.
2) keeping moving apart faster and faster until the universe is just one 0 energy, minimal density nothing.
3) keep moving apart faster and faster until you hit the speed of light, and than the fabric of space-time rips itself apart as dark energy pushes past boundaries that cannot be breached.

The only really interesting one with much hope is the Big Crunch (#1) as it could possibly lead into another big bang. And explosions are always interesting.

Re:How is this different than Big Bang standard mo (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42949375)

You've got the shift backwards. Redshift is what we already see. It's how we know the universe is expanding.

Re:How is this different than Big Bang standard mo (1)

Midnight_Falcon (2432802) | about a year and a half ago | (#42949481)

The AC is right and I stand corrected on that mix up!

Re:How is this different than Big Bang standard mo (1)

physicsphairy (720718) | about a year and a half ago | (#42949401)

The universe only collapses in on itself if it has sufficient gravitational attraction compared to the kinetic energy of its components. It is the difference between throwing a rock in the air and having it come back down (collapse) versus sending a rocket ship to another galaxy (obviously not going to fall back into the earth). The question of whether we would have a Big Crunch, keep expanding, or hit right smack in between the two (run out of energy on an infinite timescale) is an older question. Now that we know that the universe's components are actually *accelerating* away from each other, the Big Crunch does not appear to be a possibility.

Re:How is this different than Big Bang standard mo (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42949503)

I think you swapped blueshift and redshift...

Re:How is this different than Big Bang standard mo (1)

Obfuscant (592200) | about a year and a half ago | (#42949599)

Under the Big Bang theory, the universe will eventually collapse in on itself, likely at the speed of light. The tell-tale sign will be redshift instead of blueshift being observed from Earth to various astronomical bodies.

Is this what you get when you learn your astrophysics from a mass-market broadcast TV show that uses the name of a physics theory as a double entendre and focuses more on sex than science? Or rather, the alleged inability of scientists to understand sex or even behave like normal humans?

As has already been pointed out, the big bang theory does not require a subsequent collapse.

And we're already seeing redshift as the universe expands. It's blueshift we'll be seeing when it contracts. The Doppler effect lowers the apparent frequency of waves as the source moves away from us, and red is lower than blue in frequency.

Like knowing the day of your death. (1)

concealment (2447304) | about a year and a half ago | (#42949165)

I don't wanna know.

I'm not in favor of ignorance, but sometimes, it's better to live for what time we have and not depress ourselves with the toxic inevitable far-off doom that awaits us.

Let us enjoy our lives free from meta-mortality.

Re:Like knowing the day of your death. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42949409)

Knowing the day of your own death would be great. No matter what crazy stupid things you did you'd know you'd survive.

"To get the exact number, we need more funding," (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42949173)

Sounds like Scientology to me.

Is this the effect of, perhaps, global warming? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42949183)

Re:Is this the effect of, perhaps, global warming? (2)

DickBreath (207180) | about a year and a half ago | (#42949609)

> CNN Anchor Asks Bill Nye If Global Warming Had Anything To Do With A Near-Earth Asteroid

All I want to know is: where do they get people this stupid?

Not really. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42949191)

IIRC, some law of physics or other says everything will still be there no matter what.

Only a bit jumbled. Anyways I doubt I'll be around so idgaf.

A Big Crunch (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42949205)

It has been theorized before and this will just be more evidence of a cycle of big crunches and big bangs.

Only a few billion years? (4, Funny)

mark-t (151149) | about a year and a half ago | (#42949215)

I'm sort of suprised by this... I always thought that the universe, at 13.8 billion years, probably had several trillion to go. Now I find out that it's really just middle aged?

Re:Only a few billion years? (1)

bamberg (9311) | about a year and a half ago | (#42949361)

Wait 'til the mid-life crisis starts. It won't be pretty.

Don't worry (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42949237)

This particle has already been banned in Kansas.

"inherently unstable" (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42949245)

For all those that have thought the people of Earth should seek balance and be in tune with the universe, congratulations, it seems that we truly are!

Holy Shit! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42949247)

Call the 911, pronto.

Decay over time (3, Interesting)

AnotherAnonymousUser (972204) | about a year and a half ago | (#42949285)

I'm curious now, but if there's an inherent instability, would the properties of physics slowly change over time, as its constituents begin to alter or decay?

We have a long time... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42949291)

we just need to construct a form of life that can live in the new universe's rules, decayed protons, whatever, then transfer our thoughts into it. Simple.

Last Question (2, Interesting)

BLToday (1777712) | about a year and a half ago | (#42949311)

Will we have enough time to build the machine to figure out the Last Question? That seems like the obvious solution to the problem. Why wait for some random alternative universe to appear, we'll just make one ourselves...like William Bell in one of the alternative timeline.

Universes. You've seen one. You've seen 'em all. (2)

gestalt_n_pepper (991155) | about a year and a half ago | (#42949329)

At least, from your point of view.

I don't always make predictions... (1)

hawks5999 (588198) | about a year and a half ago | (#42949331)

But when I do, I predict things billions of years in the future.

Stay sub-atomically stable, my friends.

Who is this guy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42949353)

Is this the same guy that scrawled-out the Mayan calendar?

WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42949357)

Seriously, we are all going to die. Not that we have to wait that long, though.

Strange, alternative dimension, called boring (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42949367)

All tattoos and skinny jeans with nothing to say. Decreasing red shift.

bah (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42949385)

science is full of shit

It's already on its way (4, Interesting)

Linux_amateur (2685669) | about a year and a half ago | (#42949399)

The the "true vacuum" spreads at the speed of light. It could be moving towards us and we would never know. Any signal revealing the edge would arrive simultaneously with the event. Shades of the Jame Blish "Cities in Flight" series.

The Meaning of Life (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42949405)

At some point in the past the Universe inhabitable for life. At some point in the future the Universe will again return to a state that is uninhabitable for life.

The meaning of life is to learn the secret of this box and escape it before the Universe ends.

Boring universe? (2)

Orleron (835910) | about a year and a half ago | (#42949443)

Huh, interesting. Well if the universe is going to turn into a larger version of my bedroom, I hope I at least get to keep the Interwebs.

Re:Boring universe? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42949563)

Basically, the universe is going to be the same, but all the porn will be gone. So no, you don't get to keep the inerwebs. Sorry.

Type 13 planet (2)

jfdavis668 (1414919) | about a year and a half ago | (#42949459)

What do you expect from a type 13 planet?

Re:Type 13 planet (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42949551)

What do you expect from a type 13 planet?

To collapse into an object the size of a pea.

Old News (1)

RazorSharp (1418697) | about a year and a half ago | (#42949489)

I've been to the Restaurant at the End of the Universe. Been there, done that.

Spoiler Alart! (1)

ingramworks (1033694) | about a year and a half ago | (#42949513)

Now the surprise is ruined...

The question is when should scientist speak (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42949601)

The question is when should scientist speak to reporters. This is far to silly to report. And irresponsible for scientist. It used to be that economics was called the dismal science. Then we have astronomy. And now physics.

Universe is shattered ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42949621)

Does it matter ?

sheroobi ... shattered shattered ...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

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>