Re: Oh, well...
re: it could be that this is the adequate explaination for the thing with the moon
Been reading 1Q84 then?
That Higgs Boson we all got excited about last year because it would reveal the mysteries of the universe? One boffin now says his analysis of the data suggests the Higgs is, in fact, an obituary for the universe. Speaking at the American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting in Boston yesterday, Joseph Lykken of …
---> @ iuniverse2.0
filled with uppity girls drinking flavoured water and walking staring at their chick iphones omg'ing all over twittbook and faceter to prove their worth and great knowledge of hollyworld while professing right from wrong and how killing animals is wrong while eating fish sushi. (urrgh my ex-gf comes exactly to mind, completely itarded oh and SO tech savvy, like.. come on, cause like, all these apps I have), and men's jeans only coming in 'skinny' where men are longer men but we should all just be 'metro' (isn't that ironic)
-- just fkn shoot me since the hipsters refuse to all die
James Blish also examined this "bubble universe" topic in 1959 with his Cities In Flight saga. In the final book, A Clash of Cymbals, he describes a collision between two universes (this one of matter and another of antimatter, since the Higgs wasn't known about back then) and how this entire universe would be engulfed as a result.
This post has been deleted by its author
There's something like it in Greg Egan's Disapora, too, although his bubble isn't advancing at c
. [[WARNING: he spends half the book is more than 3 spatial dimensions.]]
I think A Clash of Cymbals is stretching a bit. (But why hasn't Hollywood made any of them into movies?)
Not dumb and stupid enough for Hollywood. I watched the last Batman film with the family, over 2 hours of my life I won't get back again (guys, you could disable any fusion bomb with small arms, you just need to disrupt the trigger. More holes in the plot than in a tonne of P-doped silicon). By comparison, Blish's wildest fantasy is close to sober fact.
The string theorists have been saying this for years. Susskind covered this quite well in The Cosmic Landscape (recommended largely math free high level overview of the largely current state of the art of cosmology). I guess the experimental physicists are once again surprising the theorists by starting to prove the theory empirically already.
How can you have a maths free overview of cosmology? Other than the one that starts "it's big, it's very big..." and that has been done already.
You have obviously not read Stephen Hawkins' "A Brief History of Time". Go and pick yourself up a copy from your nearest charity / second-hand book shop. IIRC, the book has one equation in it, which just goes to show you can give quite a comprehensive overview of cosmology entirely empirically, and make quite a lot of money from selling it in book form.
Yes to truly understand cosmology you have to be a math nerd. I have never seen anybody able to explain non mathematically in but the vaguest terms for example why string theory needs a certain number of dimensions (just the math breaks down, the strings vibrate too much, etc). For the other %99.9 of humans though Susskind, Hawkings, and Brian Greene do a good job of at least giving a taste of what the Ed Witten of the world are working on and what a wonderfully weird reality we live in.
This post has been deleted by its author
>It goes back well before the string theorists ... Linde *always* claims to have done something in the 1970s.
String theory has been around since the early 70s as far as concerning bosons. So its probably more apt to treat them as contemporaries but yes you are correct that it came out of the inflation studies. I only said string because I learned it from a book by a leading string theorist and misspoke.
I think you have touched on the cause - at the rate accelerators are getting bigger, in a billion years or so, one will fill the known universe, so forcing an alternate universe to bubble into existence.
An alternative could be to stop Moore's law for accelerators.
>That's kind of the entire point of experimental physics, dude!
A slight inside joke that the one thing seemingly consistent in modern physics is the theorists underestimating the ingenuity of the experimentalists. You don't necessarily need a particle accelerator as big as a galaxy to continue to push the boundaries of what we can prove.
Are we alluding to the fact here that the mass of the Higgs is "low" and so the vacuum may "decay" to a lower-state energy with high probability (because not stabilized by a high Higgs mass?) I can only say... HIGHLY speculative. Let's talk about angles on pins instead.
Additionally. with some luck, the universe will be expanding so quickly by then that any of the multicolored bubbles will never see each other....
Also: http://blog.vixra.org/2011/12/04/what-would-a-higgs-at-125-gev-tell-us/
>Additionally. with some luck, the universe will be expanding so quickly by then that any of the multicolored bubbles will never see each other....
They may never contact each other but any given point in space will be eventually enclosed in a new bubble if a bubble forms (and continues to grow) anywhere in that point's event horizon.
This post has been deleted by its author
This post has been deleted by its author