Time likely to end within 5 billion years, physicists calculate.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


I guess so

Can we call this the big collapse? Could the end result of that become a big bang? The universe is so green by recycling itself..

I dont have enough time to check out a link due to work but ill definitely be back to read it.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

I usually believe that in physics if your theory predicts a pretty nonsensical result, then it means that there is a problem or limitation of the theory.

Back in the day (prior to QM) when people computed self-energy of an electron etc and came up with nonsensical results, they didn't come out and make crazy claims about reality but believed that a new explanation and understanding is necessary in some limit.

Either the physical assumptions are wrong, or the mathematical derivation is wrong.

Well at least I have plenty of time to repent

OT: Remember reading about this, though that 5 billion years is so short. I mean, the earth is supposed to be about 4.1 billion years old or something like that. Well hopeful someone in the future figures it out or something I don't know I'll be long dead so I got's nothing to worry about.

HOLY S**T!!!!!

Oh. Never mind--I thought you said 5 MILLION years....

Originally posted by mbkennel

I usually believe that in physics if your theory predicts a pretty nonsensical result, then it means that there is a problem or limitation of the theory.

Back in the day (prior to QM) when people computed self-energy of an electron etc and came up with nonsensical results, they didn't come out and make crazy claims about reality but believed that a new explanation and understanding is necessary in some limit.

Either the physical assumptions are wrong, or the mathematical derivation is wrong.

You're way too logical. It is sad that a lot of modern articles and ideas seem to have thrown that kind of logic out the window.

I had to read to the end of the OP article to find this admission:

For those who feel uncomfortable about time ending, the physicists note that there are other solutions to the measure problem. They don't claim that their conclusion that time will end is correct, only that it follows logically from a set of assumptions. So perhaps one of the three assumptions underlying the conclusion is incorrect instead.

A prediction of what will happen 5 billion years from now, a calculation of the density of matter inside the event horizon of a black hole, and the string theory prediction of what will be observed when we collide particles with a supercollider a trillion times more powerful than the LHC all have the same problem....we don't have any way to prove any of them right or wrong at the present time because we can't make the observations.

Are these speculations more valid than speculating about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Perhaps, as they may at least have some math, but I'm not sure how much because even that math is based on assumptions, which may or may not be correct assumptions. If I had to choose which was more likely between time ending or a flawed assumption, I'm going to have to go with the flawed assumption.

Oh Great....First it was the Ozone Layer, then Greenhouse Effect, then Global Warning, Then the Climate change, that man is going to Stop with a new World "Carbon Tax"....What now ..Time going to end!!??

Ok, we better have a new "Time going to end" Tax now, so man can stop that too...

Jeesh..people???!!!!

Thankgoodness, that inimitable sage Douglas Adams came up with the "Improbability Drive", so we can all use Infinite Improbability to actually believe we can probably have any influence on anything, at anytime, went in fact the Bogons of Damazues use it to make ice particles to cool their flaming zambookas.

No biggie.
The multiverse is probably littered with universes, which have frozen time in them.

Originally posted by mbkennel

I usually believe that in physics if your theory predicts a pretty nonsensical result, then it means that there is a problem or limitation of the theory.

Back in the day (prior to QM) when people computed self-energy of an electron etc and came up with nonsensical results, they didn't come out and make crazy claims about reality but believed that a new explanation and understanding is necessary in some limit.

Either the physical assumptions are wrong, or the mathematical derivation is wrong.

Why does it have to be nosensical? We know that time can stop (event horizon). And the theory is based on the assumption of eternal expansion.

Its out there but it's not nonsensical.

ALS

Better reserve your table at the Restaurant at the End of the Universe now, if you want a good seat to watch the show - unless of course you have your own ship with an Infinite Improbability drive.

For the Universe to continually expand, indefinitely, and simultaneously accelerate, time must slow down. Reactions occur at a fixed rate, so for the rate to remain constant, time must slow.

But then again, it's only Relative.

Time may stop, but won't end unless the Universe hits the "big chill". At which point, space has spread far enough that particles are no longer able to interact with other particles. But then you have to wonder what would a particle do with it's energy considering there are no interactions possible?

Another big bang?

So let's see... by then we still won't have flying cars, American Idol will be in it's 5 billion and 11th season, and the Facebook privacy laws will have caused the complete breakdown of human civilization as we know it.

Too bad I won't be there!