Home » Cosmology, News » Cosmology 2013: Yikes! The end is near(er). Maybe. Then again, maybe not.

Cosmology 2013: Yikes! The end is near(er). Maybe. Then again, maybe not.

collapse of universe/U Southern Denmark

According to recent pop science news,

Maybe it happens tomorrow. Maybe in a billion years. Physicists have long predicted that the universe may one day collapse, and that everything in it will be compressed to a small hard ball. New calculations from physicists at the University of Southern Denmark now confirm this prediction — and they also conclude that the risk of a collapse is even greater than previously thought.

Sooner or later a radical shift in the forces of the universe will cause every little particle in it to become extremely heavy. Everything — every grain of sand on Earth, every planet in the solar system and every galaxy — will become millions of billions times heavier than it is now, and this will have disastrous consequences: The new weight will squeeze all material into a small, super hot and super heavy ball, and the universe as we know it will cease to exist.

And every day brings us one day closer. They used to teach something like that in Sunday school, probably still do, with religious and moral overtones thrown in.

“Many theories and calculations predict such a phase transition- but there have been some uncertainties in the previous calculations. Now we have performed more precise calculations, and we see two things: Yes, the universe will probably collapse , and: A collapse is even more likely than the old calculations predicted,” says Jens Frederik Colding Krog, PhD student at the Center for Cosmology and Particle Physics Phenomenology (CP ³ — Origins) at University of Southern Denmark and co-author of an article on the subject in the Journal of High Energy Physics.

How can it be even more certain than certain? But just when we were sorting that out, we learned,

Although the new calculations predict that a collapse is now more likely than ever before, it is actually also possible, that it will not happen at all. It is a prerequisite for the phase change that the universe consists of the elementary particles that we know today, including the Higgs particle. If the universe contains undiscovered particles, the whole basis for the prediction of phase change disappears.

“Then the collapse will be canceled,” says Jens Frederik Colding Krog.

That’s it! I’m sticking with the Sunday School version. They would never just cancel the apocalypse exactly when the dragon was supposed to appear and raise some cain.

This sort of “science news” prompts a question I’ve been asking often lately: What makes this stuff science? Don’t tell me that you don’t regard it as science. I don’t either. But that is how it is classed. Why? The answer is materialism, technically called methodological naturalism. Usually described as “science must ignore the supernatural,” it actually means that science must act as though intelligence derives from matter and the products of intelligence come about accidentally. Any explanation of any phenomenon, no matter how bizarre, is acceptable if the alternative is that matter derives from or is shaped by intelligence.

For example, the End-of-All-Things  need only be an apocalypse that owes nothing to any kind of intelligence. Otherwise it need not make any sense.

In the same way, the multiverse appears all the more believable to the extent that it doesn’t make any sense at all.

– O’Leary for News

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

8 Responses to Cosmology 2013: Yikes! The end is near(er). Maybe. Then again, maybe not.

  1. It does make one wonder about the oogly-oogly bird…. Is it possible that it really does exist? Well, we know it must in the multiverse, don’t we?

    Moving in ever-decreasing circles and disappearing up its own fundament smacks too much like the diseased product of an anecdotal version of science to be a possible discovery even of quantum mechanics, I think.

  2. More voodoo physics to mesmerize the masses.

  3. Maybe the Mayans were off by a year!

    So the theory is that at some point the gravitational constant will jump up?

    And why would it fall into a small fiery ball instead of a super-massive black hole?

  4. Collin:

    So the theory is that at some point the gravitational constant will jump up?

    Rest assured that this is all coming from a bunch of know-it-alls who haven’t the slightest clue as to what causes gravity. Heck, they don’t even know why a body in inertial motion remain in motion. Their ignorance is deep and in your face and yet, they feel free to conjure up all sorts of Star Trek voodoo physics.

  5. Hilarious! I’ve just rumbled why this twaddle about ‘counter-intuitiveness’ from the mouths of our ‘soi-disant’ rationalist, materialist chums.

    Inevitably, Einstein’s dicta, as processed by their brains, are (to borrow a simile from Evelyn Waugh), like a precious Sevres vase in the hands of a chimpanzee. They affect to despise Einstein’s deist ‘take’ on Creation and Intelligent Design, yet cravenly seek to co-opt his words of wisdom in relation to science.

    Such as, for example, Einstein’s dictum, below. How could they not b*alls it up, when the ‘sacredness’ Einstein referred to, does not figure in their lexicon at. all.

    ‘The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.’

  6. The reality, of course, is that they think the servant is the gift. Rationalism: the gift that just never stops giving.

  7. Collin @ 3

    Indeed!

    Maybe the Mayans were off by a year!

    Easy to do. Maybe they forgot the constant after they did the integration. ;-)

    So the theory is that at some point the gravitational constant will jump up?

    Lessee, maybe G stays the same and the fabric of the universe thins, becoming more stretchy.

    And why would it fall into a small fiery ball instead of a super-massive black hole?

    Good questions. Small as compared to what? Fiery when viewed from where?

    -Q

  8. The paper assume two things : 1) The Standard Model of particles will work way up to Planck scale 2) No new particles will be discovered to add to the existing standard model. Both assumption are ridiculous.

    We already are trying to identify WIMPS, so even assuming no super symmetry particles, we have a candidate for particles which has a potential quartic coupling with the Higgs Boson.
    However, there is no doubt that two vacua exist and we do live in meta stability zone, which is another fillip to finely tuned universe or String theory -depending on whether you are theist or atheist.

Leave a Reply