Higgs Boson Mass points to end of our Universe

[Timelord_Victorious]

So... we are back from a cold death of the universe hypothesis to a looping universe hypothesis only this time without a big crunch where a new universe just bursts into existance and painting over the old one?
Does that mean, that older universes could theoretically be seen if we had FTL telescopes to see past the "edge" of the current one?

[Asbo Zaprudder]

Timelord_Victorious wrote:

---

So... we are back from a cold death of the universe hypothesis to a looping universe hypothesis only this time without a big crunch where a new universe just bursts into existance and painting over the old one?
Does that mean, that older universes could theoretically be seen if we had FTL telescopes to see past the "edge" of the current one?

What's an FTL telescope when it's at home? That's science fiction, I'm afraid - for the moment at least.

Roger Penrose and Vahe Gurzadyan looked for and claimed that they had found signatures of previous universes recorded in the CMB, but the statistical methods they used have been criticized.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformal_cyclic_cosmology

[Ayelbourne]

This whole thing reminds me of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
In the first book, there's a theory stating the everytime people figure out the universe it's destroyed and replaced by something even more confusing.

[Christopher]

Asbo Zaprudder wrote:

---

Wasn't the mostly execrable film Supernova (2000) based on a similar premise, where the state change was triggered by an alien artifact and a supernova?

Not a clue. Never saw it.

Saul wrote:

---

Well it seems that they are saying that the universe just recycles itself every couple of billion years. Which means we weren't the first universe, or the last and this might have happened lots of times already.

No, I don't think that's what they're saying. This wouldn't be an alternate reality with stars and planets like ours. It would be a change of state in the nature of the universe, an alteration of its laws of physics that would make stars and planets and life unable to exist. They're just calling it an "alternate universe" because it would be a radically different type of universe after the change.

That false vacuum article at Wikipedia, linked above, mentions some of the other science fiction works that have used the idea of a vacuum metastability event as a cosmic doomsday scenario, including the story "Vacuum States" by Geoffrey A. Landis and the novels Time by Stephen Baxter and Schild's Ladder by Greg Egan.

[Tribble puncher]

Christopher wrote:

---

Not a clue. Never saw it.

I remember that movie, Something about 9th dimensional matter being encased in a shell that exists in the 3rd dimension...it was a neat concept, too bad it was executed so badly in the film. That film really had only three things going for it, IMHO. The concept, The visuals were great to look at (seriously, there are alot of space beauty shots in this film), and Angela Basset. (I thought she was kinda hot in that movie). Unfortunately, everything else about the film is a nonsensical mess...

[gturner]

Christopher wrote:

---

That false vacuum article at Wikipedia, linked above, mentions some of the other science fiction works that have used the idea of a vacuum metastability event as a cosmic doomsday scenario, including the story "Vacuum States" by Geoffrey A. Landis and the novels Time by Stephen Baxter and Schild's Ladder by Greg Egan.

I looked at the blurb on Schild's Ladder and it reminded me a bit of Peter F. Hamilton's Void trilogy.

[Asbo Zaprudder]

Tribble puncher wrote:

---

I remember that movie, Something about 9th dimensional matter being encased in a shell that exists in the 3rd dimension...it was a neat concept, too bad it was executed so badly in the film. That film really had only three things going for it, IMHO. The concept, The visuals were great to look at (seriously, there are alot of space beauty shots in this film), and Angela Basset. (I thought she was kinda hot in that movie). Unfortunately, everything else about the film is a nonsensical mess...

They actually employed a NASA scientist or some such as technical adviser so some bits were quite well done. I think there was a scene showing a realistic depiction of depressurization on a human body. Mostly, I remember Angela Basset...

[Christopher]

Asbo Zaprudder wrote:

---

They actually employed a NASA scientist or some such as technical adviser so some bits were quite well done. I think there was a scene showing a realistic depiction of depressurization on a human body.

Are you sure you're not thinking of Event Horizon? That movie did an excellent job portraying the effects of vacuum exposure realistically.

[Asbo Zaprudder]

Christopher wrote:

---

Are you sure you're not thinking of Event Horizon? That movie did an excellent job portraying the effects of vacuum exposure realistically.

Ah, perhaps so. Those two films plus Sunshine tend to blur together in my memory as I have no desire to watch them again.

[YellowSubmarine]

Actually, one might ponder if the universe being stable isn't a strange thing in the first place. If there were infinite universes,* I'd suspect that the average one would be either lifeless or contain conditions suitable for life only briefly. Universes that contain intelligent self-aware beings might turn out to be rather unlikely. They might also turn out to be themselves on the edge of being either lifeless or about to become lifeless very soon.

It took 14.8 Ga for life to reach the stage it is presently in, so to observe what we observe the universe doesn't need stability for more than a few tens of billions of years. Exactly the big slurp time frame. It would then be somewhat surprising if we had significantly more before us. If this turns out to be true, it would be depressing – I felt rather dispirited reading the first post – but it should not have been unexpected.

Another consequence of this line of thought is that we might turn out to be alone in the universe. I mean, if I'm correct to assume that we should be on the edge of being lifeless, life will be anything but abundant. But hey, life has to be like galactic federal elections - results on similar planets have to be highly correlated.

Please correct me, I want to be wrong.


* Actually, the probability that the universe is what it is has to be the same whether there is one or there are an infinite number, but meh, otherwise the anthropic principle makes less sense to me.

[Deckerd]

Asbo Zaprudder wrote:

---

Ah, perhaps so. Those two films plus Sunshine tend to blur together in my memory as I have no desire to watch them again.

Snap, although I tend not to confuse their awfulness. The deliberately going into zero gravity to have sex scene in Supernova was especially special.

[Pingfah]

Deckerd wrote:

---

Snap, although I tend not to confuse their awfulness. The deliberately going into zero gravity to have sex scene in Supernova was especially special.

Even more special when you consider that the Spader/Bassett love scene was actually edited together out of parts of an abandoned sex scene between Tunney & Facinelli, using CGI to make Tunney's body appear to be black.

Awful awful film. Sunshine has problems, but it is an order of magnitude better than Supernova. Despite its general rubbishness, so is Event Horizon

[Robert Maxwell]

Pingfah wrote:

---

Even more special when you consider that the Spader/Bassett love scene was actually edited together out of parts of an abandoned sex scene between Tunney & Facinelli, using CGI to make Tunney's body appear to be black.

Awful awful film. Sunshine has problems, but it is an order of magnitude better than Supernova. Despite its general rubbishness, so is Event Horizon

Sunshine was like two different movies--the first one being a lot better than the second.

I liked Event Horizon. Never saw Supernova. I'm kind of tempted to watch it, given how bizarre and terrible it sounds.

[Deckerd]

Sorry for dragging everyone off topic there, OP.

[Saul]

Christopher wrote:

---

Not a clue. Never saw it.

No, I don't think that's what they're saying. This wouldn't be an alternate reality with stars and planets like ours.

But still a Universe in some terms.

It would be a change of state in the nature of the universe, an alteration of its laws of physics that would make stars and planets and life unable to exist. ]They're just calling it an "alternate universe" because it would be a radically different type of universe after the change.

Ha! take that pi!