Why physicists now question the fate of the Universe \ stacker news ~science

Why physicists now question the fate of the Universe bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/physicists-question-fate-universe/

1350 sats \ 41 comments \ @sefiro 23 May science

247 sats \ 6 replies \ @south_korea_ln 23 May

Perhaps dark energy isn’t truly a constant, after all. Perhaps it is something that changes and evolves with time. If so, our cosmic fate could dramatically differ from what we typically suppose. If dark energy strengthens and becomes more negative with time, it could lead to a Big Rip. If it weakens and becomes more positive, it could potentially stop the Universe from accelerating and may even revive the possibility that we’ll recollapse and end in a Big Crunch. With years of new DESI data just waiting to be analyzed, and tens of millions of objects to be added to their upcoming catalogs, we might see what comes of these hints sooner rather than later. In the meantime, it’s of paramount importance that we keep our minds open to all of the possibilities that the data still admits. After all, the Universe may turn out to be a stranger place than anyone has imagined so far.

I'm old enough to have had a teacher in high school believing in the Big Crunch (he even believed in the yoyo universe: expansion, contraction, expansion, contraction,...). Now for years, I told people the consensus is that it's expanding. It's really exciting to see that after all, things might be different again, and a big Crunch is back on the table :)

0 sats \ 4 replies \ @didiplaywell 23 May

I'm adamant on thermal death. Thermodynamics have yet to fail me.

10 sats \ 1 reply \ @south_korea_ln 23 May

Yes, heat death seems to make the most intuitive sense to me too.

Didn't really understand the argument Sabine Hossenfelder made in a video where she explains why she does not believe in the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It's a bit philosophical (and quite out of character as she likes to sh*t on the usefulness or lack thereof of fundamental particle physics research).

100 sats \ 0 replies \ @didiplaywell 23 May

Thank you for pointing me to the video and the right minute where she goes to the point. Seeing that a classic enthusiastic holdish physics teacher haves 1.5M subscribers and her video on such a niche yet fundamental topic haves 1.1 views gives me years of life.

I fully agree with her, that's exactly the way I see it. "Thermal death" is the point where such new complex systems will emerge, and for every new system entropy "starts at zero" in the exact same physical sense and rigour in that every time a column of water decreases, that new level is the new "zero". I have that coupled as part of the reasoning (together with some other stuff I'm working on) that haves lead to the image I posted in my bio:

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @kilianbuhn 23 May

Thermodynamics have yet to fail me.

What do you think lies beyond the universe? What is "nothing" but a different "nothing" than the vacuum of space? And why is this nothing attracting space into it?

Does this nothing adhere to thermodynamics? Isn't the pure exsistence of the something expanding into the nothing kinda not thermodynamics like?

107 sats \ 0 replies \ @didiplaywell 23 May

Interesting questions! :)

To start, there is nothing such as "attractions", a term which is used within physics only in an informal manner. All forces, even field forces, are "pushing". That's exactly the way "suction" works with air vacuums for example. They don't exert "suction", but push material with their blades to another place, so to generate a void that the atmosphere itself fills due to it's own pressure (entropy!). This is no different from the forces you can exert yourself: think about it, you can only push things, never "attract" them.

So, in your words, "nothing can't attract nothing", which holds true regardless of the many interpretations of the words.

Absolutely everything, even nothing, adheres to the fundamental laws of thermodynamics, an absolute power of our knowledge that never stops to amaze me, which secretly relies in the fact that the laws of thermodynamics can't be defined in an absolute form but are always interpreted for every specific context.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @sefiro OP 23 May

Yeah, I'm also excited that a Big Crunch is back on the table. Personally, I always liked the idea of a yo-yo universe rather than an ever-expanding one, and I still do.

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @RoundaboutStacker 23 May

the Big Crunch is bar far the most interesting scenario since it allows resources to come back together to potentially be made use of. It also means there is a time limit to escape this universe as it collapses on itself. Somewhere in about 6 billion years we, as a species, need to be capable of multi-versal jumps in order to survive.

1007 sats \ 8 replies \ @didiplaywell 23 May

To science, in strict terms, the fate of the universe as never be certain, to start. The "this changes everything" titles are just baits, hopefully to an actually good article. But science permanently changes. A good theory is never judged by "not being false" but by how long it holds true.

1010 sats \ 7 replies \ @sefiro OP 23 May

True, and eventually with more accurate measurements every theory has its limits and a new one is needed. And different theories can coexist in their own limitations. I like to think of Newtonian mechanics and SR/GR. Newton’s theory is still good at low speeds and weak gravity, although Einstein's theories describe it more accurately and within broader limits.

142 sats \ 5 replies \ @south_korea_ln 23 May

Good to see a few Stackers here with a proper understanding of how the scientific method works... welcome to the ~science territory~~ It's depressing at times to see how much distrust there is in science these days, especially in the Bitcoin community.

0 sats \ 4 replies \ @didiplaywell 23 May

Then I thankfully don't know the community much, what kind of distrust in science bitcoiners have expressed?

21 sats \ 3 replies \ @south_korea_ln 23 May

Well, the most obvious example is the distrust towards vaccines. Because of the (justified) distrust in some of the political decisions to push (mRNA) vaccines regardless of sufficient or insufficient testing (where some scientists such as Faucci played a dirty role, I concur), many people now flat-out reject the proven efficacy of long-tested vaccines in general (some childhood diseases are now on the return and becoming deadly again because large communities refuse to vaccinate their children completely) or, arguably, fail to acknowledge the promising future of mRNA as new technology.

Or the reliance on anecdotical evidence to push for all-meat diets and the anti-seed oil movement. These diets might have a promising future ahead, but that's why the scientific method exists. To test, with control groups, and adjust existing knowledge in light of new evidence. And not because great leader Saifedean says so :)

Then again, the vocal Bitcoiners expressing these anti-science ideas are probably not representative of the majority of quiet Bitcoiners...

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @didiplaywell 23 May

Ohhhh Ok, well, nothing out of standards sadly. I of course have seen the same amidst libertarianism itself, not surprised to see it amidst bitcoiners. This phenomenon is what convinces me that "intelligence" isn't a single virtue but applies individually to different fields, and to see someone being logical in a given field do not means he is able to extrapolate the same abstract causality criteria to other fields (sometimes not even within the same field).

My mantra regarding any terraplanism, cultism and similar idiotic attitudes is: be accountable for your own stupidity and be happy, but don't thread on me 🐍

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @south_korea_ln 23 May

and to see someone being logical in a given field do not means he is able to extrapolate the same abstract causality criteria to other fields (sometimes not even within the same field).

Very true. And it is easy to recognize when one actually is an expert in the field the other person thinks he is an expert by extrapolation of unrelated expertise.

Reminds me to always be aware of Gell-Mann amnesia~~

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @didiplaywell 23 May

Thank you for pointing me to the article! That coupled with the dunning-kruger effect makes for a hopeless combo, yaayy :D

reply on another page

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @didiplaywell 23 May

Exactly 💯

17 sats \ 21 replies \ @Satosora 23 May

I think there is so much we still dont know about the universe. As a species, we are learning new ways of making ourselves extinct. Its a learning process. Or was it supposed to be the other way?

27 sats \ 20 replies \ @didiplaywell 23 May

The first thing that got us close to extinction was not knowing how to harvest food. Everything is progress from that point onwards, despite everything. Has for the universe, it's worse than that: it has been long demonstrated that its mathematically impossible to ever have a quote of knowledge. Our knowledge is condemned to be infinitesimal, yet so precious.

21 sats \ 19 replies \ @Satosora 23 May

What really bothers me is we are able to do vertical farming, and so many things economically, yet we dont. The world could live on good food, healthy food. Yet we eat plastic shit.

21 sats \ 5 replies \ @Satosora 23 May

@Undisciplined I want to hear your opinion on this!

110 sats \ 4 replies \ @Undisciplined 23 May

I don't think we're particularly close to understanding the fundamental principles of cosmology, so none of these models are going to be very accurate at the most extreme scales.

21 sats \ 3 replies \ @Satosora 23 May

We are still in the process of understanding the universe. I agree.

31 sats \ 2 replies \ @xz 23 May

Which is still pretty amazing right. The fact that we built all of these tools to analyze and elucidate theories, I mean, as an organized species. Impossible as an individual conquest.

I like your comment above though, it stings that the hard reality is that with the alleged intellectual prowess and the organizational processes of human efforts, we still fall flat on our faces, in attempts to solve the simplest problems. This reminds me of the fact the scientific navel-gazing is somehow imbued with the very problems it sets out to solve.

Perhaps the problem humanity and the scientific community has is, it does not err on the side of caution and often finds itself self-correcting after years of collective 'uncommon sense'.

20 sats \ 1 reply \ @Undisciplined 23 May

I think that's right, but also that science reporting strips away all of the cautions and caveats that scientists themselves would probably give.

view replies

10 sats \ 12 replies \ @didiplaywell 23 May

As with anything, anything that's economically viable will be done. Absolutely no one will not produce food economically out of evilness. There's no shortness of good and healthy food, and any procedure used to preserve food will still apply to vertical farming. Don't worry about any of that. Do worry about anything that perverses incentives, and that's why we are here. Many of the things that could be done are prevented by perverted incentives due to governmental intervention.

10 sats \ 11 replies \ @Satosora 23 May

Very true. The government is corrupt, it does need to change. The people need to take action.

10 sats \ 10 replies \ @didiplaywell 23 May

To put it on perspective: my country, Argentina, produces food for 10 (TEN) times our current population. Not 10%, not twice, but 10. Yet there are cases in the north of kids that have died of malnutrition. Capitalism? The north averages 90% of employment in state positions. Taxes? 75 to 80% of what's produced. Excess of population? The north barely reaches a million in total. We are 45.000.000 million. We produce food for 450.000.000 million. What's the problem? Government, or vertical farming?

10 sats \ 9 replies \ @Satosora 23 May

hhhmm...you are right. Government is the problem.

10 sats \ 8 replies \ @didiplaywell 23 May

There we go. Now, start looking around you, pay attention, and you will find the dirty claws of the state perverting everything. Can you think of something?