Higgs Boson Particle May Spell Doom For the Universe

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
The Higgs Boson particle is going to kill us all. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but in a billion years from now it's definitely going to kill us all.

For example, the mass of the new particle is about 126 billion electron volts, or about 126 times the mass of the proton. If that particle really is the Higgs, its mass turns out to be just about what's needed to make the universe fundamentally unstable, in a way that would cause it to end catastrophically in the far future.
Click to expand...
 
But will it kill us before the sun explodes (5 Billion years orso?) , if not there is no thrill , and the word may is so scientific :) .
 
This is why I lease everything. Owning is for suckers! Debt free in 100 billion years, idiots!
 
Its called Entropy and the Universe is already doomed. Every single "thing" in the Universe has an end date.

The simple truth is that instability gave rise to the Universe as we exist within it and it will slowly march it towards its slow cycle of death.

The funny part is that nothing is technically destroyed , only modified to the point where it can no longer be of use but all the energy of the Universe will continue to exist in this virtually useless form. At least that is what the standard model seems to imply.

We could also die in a big crunch. Even if we did , everything will again modify into another form. So in truth death isn't real. Death is actually transference and entropy is the guide.
 
That's because it's all just a computer simulation on an unstable operating system :p
 
Godmachine said:
Its called Entropy and the Universe is already doomed. Every single "thing" in the Universe has an end date.

The simple truth is that instability gave rise to the Universe as we exist within it and it will slowly march it towards its slow cycle of death.

The funny part is that nothing is technically destroyed , only modified to the point where it can no longer be of use but all the energy of the Universe will continue to exist in this virtually useless form. At least that is what the standard model seems to imply.

We could also die in a big crunch. Even if we did , everything will again modify into another form. So in truth death isn't real. Death is actually transference and entropy is the guide.
Click to expand...

Isn't there also some off-the-wall theory that, due to the probability of quantum mechanics, there's a chance that the entire universe could "reorganize" itself, creating yet another big bang? I mean the chance is virtually zero, but if it's not exactly zero, then it's bound to happen given extreme time scales. It's one of those "something can come from nothing" things I hear from time to time but I haven't looked into it very much.
 
Higgs hasn't even been classified as being the actual particle. It's still conjecture in that volt range. Besides, the idea that the field itself could destabilize after so long is what I would call the vapours. Current astrophysics doesn't even account for how the Higgs interacts with dark matter/energy if they are outside of the field themselves or if there is even a correlation. It's a postulate without merit and I don't know why, beyond creating artificial sensationalism this is even a serious subject.
 
Godmachine said:
We could also die in a big crunch. Even if we did , everything will again modify into another form. So in truth death isn't real. Death is actually transference and entropy is the guide.
Click to expand...

Hasn't the big crunch been discredited. The rate of expansion of the universe is increasing.
 
537007_241750059292818_1512368564_n.jpg
 
BladeVenom said:
Hasn't the big crunch been discredited. The rate of expansion of the universe is increasing.
Click to expand...

Not wholly, no - or at least not yet. There's still some scenarios where the expansion could potentially revert itself, iirc.
 
Yoshiyuki Blade said:
Isn't there also some off-the-wall theory that, due to the probability of quantum mechanics, there's a chance that the entire universe could "reorganize" itself, creating yet another big bang? I mean the chance is virtually zero, but if it's not exactly zero, then it's bound to happen given extreme time scales. It's one of those "something can come from nothing" things I hear from time to time but I haven't looked into it very much.
Click to expand...

I'm going off of Professor Farnsworth's own experience that, at the end of the universe when the last proton decays, the universe will explode again in a second big bang.

heheh...Professor Farnsworth. :D
 
or it could be that there's some physics that's causing that. That's something new, which we didn't know before."
Click to expand...

This is the most profound part of the story. Actual scientist admitting perhaps something they don't know is going on ... although the way it's used is still meh..
 
Why do I feel if I could see the people posting in this thread, they would look like this?
Big-Bang-Theory_510.jpg
 
DogChainX said:
I'm going off of Professor Farnsworth's own experience that, at the end of the universe when the last proton decays, the universe will explode again in a second big bang.

heheh...Professor Farnsworth. :D
Click to expand...
If the original singularity was infinitely dense then the last proton decaying in our universe would mean nothing as it would not be dense at all. So how would it explode?
 
BladeVenom said:
Hasn't the big crunch been discredited. The rate of expansion of the universe is increasing.
Click to expand...

That evidence has recently been called into question.
It is based on observations of supernovae remnants. They are based on the assumption that when a supernova goes boom, it is due to one star in a binary pair doing all the exploding and the second should stick around. They're now finding evidence it doesn't quite work this way all the time and could seriously throw off their calculations.
But before this is all decided on there are a lot of observations and calculations to be made.
 
Yoshiyuki Blade said:
Isn't there also some off-the-wall theory that, due to the probability of quantum mechanics, there's a chance that the entire universe could "reorganize" itself, creating yet another big bang? I mean the chance is virtually zero, but if it's not exactly zero, then it's bound to happen given extreme time scales. It's one of those "something can come from nothing" things I hear from time to time but I haven't looked into it very much.
Click to expand...

That would be called "The Big Crunch" as I said.

Right now there is no "certain" pattern to how the Universe will end or if it will ever end. Its all best guess and with the LHC data making breakthroughs in the standard model and theoretical physics on weekly basis there really hasn't been this much uncertainty in a while.

So many possible theories are up for grabs and with the LHC off line for the next 2 years , its going to time for all that data to be heavily vetted and extrapolated and proofed.

But throughout all the math that has been generated on the topic of how the Universe will possibly end it seems as if order in the Universe is truly the chaotic state and not stability as we know it. It seems true instability is possibly not a real thing in the way we understand. In a simpler sense its as if unstable is stable and stable is unstable. Chaos is as important as what we view as stability.

The doom and gloom of the article also doesn't mention any kind of time tables. Even if the Universe will end some day it will be so far off in the future in terms of time as we know it (think Trillions of years) that while its an interesting exercise to figure out the most likely possibility , we will be long extinct so its a more about getting the whole picture than worrying about any kind of doom.
 
BladeVenom said:
Hasn't the big crunch been discredited. The rate of expansion of the universe is increasing.
Click to expand...

Not yet it hasn't. Without more data and a better understanding of quantum physics we might not even come close to understanding it. Its purely all theoretical at the moment , that is to say how the Universe might end.

The expansion rate of the Universe shows us that a force is at work (dark energy or simply "we don't know what to call it") but there are also models that show dark energy actually slowing down at some point and eventually gravity ends up rubber banding everything back into a point.. hence the "Big Crunch".

I personally don't subscribe to any of those theories yet as we need more data and evidence before something factual can be nominated.

jpm100 said:
Why do I feel if I could see the people posting in this thread, they would look like this?
Big-Bang-Theory_510.jpg
Click to expand...

Its really funny to think what pop culture views what a "nerd" should look like. Also The Big Bang Theory while being cute and what not is just TV. The reality is far more boring and a lot less "geeky" than they portray it as. At times its straight up insulting. Almost every physicist I know is married or in a relationship and that is something TBBY has portrayed very poorly.
 
sfsuphysics said:
This is the most profound part of the story. Actual scientist admitting perhaps something they don't know is going on ... although the way it's used is still meh..
Click to expand...

Scientist have always been comfortable with the unknown because they are always working at the boundaries between what's known and what's unknown. There are many things in nature which we still doesn't have an explanation for, and the difference here is that the scientific community is ok with that, they don't need to have an explanation for everything right now, they don't feel the need to invoke something else to fill the gap.
 
Eisenblut said:
If the original singularity was infinitely dense then the last proton decaying in our universe would mean nothing as it would not be dense at all. So how would it explode?
Click to expand...

Think of the last proton decaying as the last remaining stabilizer of the universe, or the last link to existence of a universe. Without that anchor, nothing exists, and when nothing exists, time has no meaning. Therefor time starts again from the original singularity, a second big bang. Its an eventuality that will always happen, since it has already happened.

Or just read this transcript from Farnsworth's own experience....LINK :D
 
Eisenblut said:
If the original singularity was infinitely dense then the last proton decaying in our universe would mean nothing as it would not be dense at all. So how would it explode?
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that the concept of the "Big Bang Theory" doesn't neccesarily mean the universe literally exploded.

Please remember that the term "Big Bang" was coined by someone who was deriding the theory in the first place.
 
ballistic90 said:
Keep in mind that the concept of the "Big Bang Theory" doesn't neccesarily mean the universe literally exploded.

Please remember that the term "Big Bang" was coined by someone who was deriding the theory in the first place.
Click to expand...

You know an explosion is a rapid expansion of material from a central location. What about that definition does the Big Bang not fit?
 
Godmachine said:
The expansion rate of the Universe shows us that a force is at work (dark energy or simply "we don't know what to call it") but there are also models that show dark energy actually slowing down at some point and eventually gravity ends up rubber banding everything back into a point.. hence the "Big Crunch".
Click to expand...
What still has to be contended with is the horizon problem; the velocity at which far objects are moving (relative to us) will eventually surpass C. This means the light (information) emitted from a galaxy that has crossed the horizon, for example, will never reach us. Coincidentally, the gravitational attraction between us and said galaxy will no longer apply.
 
jpm100 said:
You know an explosion is a rapid expansion of material from a central location. What about that definition does the Big Bang not fit?
Click to expand...

It was the rapid expansion of spacetime, matter happened to hitch a ride. :p
 
Godmachine said:
Its really funny to think what pop culture views what a "nerd" should look like. Also The Big Bang Theory while being cute and what not is just TV. The reality is far more boring and a lot less "geeky" than they portray it as. At times its straight up insulting. Almost every physicist I know is married or in a relationship and that is something TBBY has portrayed very poorly.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but being a physicist has many levels, and perhaps the ones that do have social interaction disorders (like those in the TV show) just don't interact enough for you to realize they are in fact out there.
 
Godmachine said:
I personally don't subscribe to any of those theories yet as we need more data and evidence before something factual can be nominated.
Click to expand...

Also check out Hubble redshifts and the cosmic microwave background radiation.
 
sfsuphysics said:
Yeah, but being a physicist has many levels, and perhaps the ones that do have social interaction disorders (like those in the TV show) just don't interact enough for you to realize they are in fact out there.
Click to expand...

Indeed. I find it humorous that people respond with "that's not how nerds act," rejecting the characters of a fictional television show created for entertainment and replacing them with their own modified generalizations... which are still generalizations.

If all the characters were normal and none of their traits were amplified the show would become more of a reality TV show than anything else... the humor is found in understanding the idea, feeling or situation that is taken to the extreme (to absurdity).

I find one of the characters humorous because I share similar mannerisms (as a scientist with asperger's syndrome) and friends find it humorous for the same reasons.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top