Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The Higgs Boson Should Have Crushed the Universe

Soulskill posted about 4 months ago | from the good-thing-we-skipped-universe-school-that-day dept.

Space 188

astroengine writes: This may seem a little far fetched, but if our understanding of the physics behind the recently-discovered Higgs boson (or, more specifically, the Higgs field — the ubiquitous field that endows all stuff with mass) is correct, our Universe shouldn't exist. That is, however, if another cosmological hypothesis is real, a hypothesis that is currently undergoing intense scrutiny in light of the BICEP2 results. "The mathematics to arise from accepted Higgs field theory suggests the universe is currently sitting comfortably in a Higgs field energy 'valley.' To get out of this valley and up the adjacent 'hill,' huge quantities of energy would need to be unleashed inside the field. But, if there were enough energy to push the universe over the hill and into the deeper energy valley next door, the universe would simply, and catastrophically, collapse.

This is where the BICEP2 results come in. If their observations are real and gravitational waves in the CMB prove cosmological inflation, the Higgs field has already been kicked by too much energy, pushing the Higgs field over the energy hill and deep into the neighboring valley’s precipice! For any wannabe universe, this is very bad news — the newborn universe would appear as a Big Bang, the Higgs field would become overloaded with an energetic inflationary period, and the whole lot would vanish in a blink of an eye."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Phew, it was a near miss! (2)

someone1234 (830754) | about 4 months ago | (#47313361)

We barely avoided this catastrophe!

Re:Phew, it was a near miss! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47313383)

Or maybe we're about to run into one and we have no way of telling! Someone call the media, they love this kind of story!

Re:Phew, it was a near miss! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47313657)

Yes, and hollywood will make a movie about it, how we only have 10 hours to this event and they send the only man (played by Chuck Norris) to prevent it by firing a friggin' laser beam into the field.

Re:Phew, it was a near miss! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47314235)

If JJ Abrams or Michael Bay are in charge, you bet there will be a crew of 10 sent to solve the problem after Chuck Norris goes MIA, and also bring him back by presidential order. Then the movie will end with Norris and just 3 of the search party returning after successfully re-setting the field. Oh, and a lightning bolt emerging from a black hole will hit the Statue of Liberty. Lens flares will be massive.

Slow blink (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47313455)

Fortunately god blinks very slowly.

our Universe shouldn't exist. (4, Funny)

Chrisq (894406) | about 4 months ago | (#47313375)

our Universe shouldn't exist.

Maybe it doesn't

Re: our Universe shouldn't exist. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47313389)

Why would it not exist? We are here to observe that it exists.

Re: our Universe shouldn't exist. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47313405)

How do you know you're not simply a figment of something else's imagination ?

Re: our Universe shouldn't exist. (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47313453)

I think, therefore I am.

Assuming that a thought requires a medium, even if I am a figment of something else's imagination that imagination defines this universe as it is.
Of course, when observing from within there is no way we can tell if a thought really requires something to carry it or if the concept of it is sufficient for it to exist. (*)

* Since everyone can be wrong and by definition not knowing that they are wrong there is no way to prove any statement to be correct, including this one. Note that this isn't a paradox, this statement can be correct even if its correctness is non-provable.

Re: our Universe shouldn't exist. (2)

Chrisq (894406) | about 4 months ago | (#47313483)

I think, therefore I am.

Assuming that a thought requires a medium, even if I am a figment of something else's imagination that imagination defines this universe as it is. Of course, when observing from within there is no way we can tell if a thought really requires something to carry it or if the concept of it is sufficient for it to exist. (*)

* Since everyone can be wrong and by definition not knowing that they are wrong there is no way to prove any statement to be correct, including this one. Note that this isn't a paradox, this statement can be correct even if its correctness is non-provable.

Though "this universe as it is" may be very different from "this universe as we think it is", or "this universe as 'observed' by us" as observation could just be a dream or simulation

Re: our Universe shouldn't exist. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47313573)

Simple. We do not have any evidence that it is a dream or simulation. There is no reason to suspect that there is somewhere a "real universe" which we cannot see. We simply do not have the capabilities to reach the higher abstraction level (if there even is any) to verify if this is real or not. Just like Transport Tycoon Deluxe cannot verify or understand that it actually is a computer simulation. From its perspective it's a real train world. With the knowledge we have right now, what we are experiencing is "as real as it gets". And ultimately, it does not even make a difference. Even if this was a simulation or not, the experience is the same.

Re: our Universe shouldn't exist. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47313677)

You contradict yourself. Just because there is no evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist. In your game example, yes as far as the game is concerned there is nothing outside it but of course we know there is. The game is not aware that it's running on my computer and I am playing it but it is and I am.

Re: our Universe shouldn't exist. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47313729)

Just because there is no evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Of course that is true, but then again there is literally infinite amount of things that could exist but of which we have no evidence. It's generally pointless to suggest that something might exist if there is no evidence towards it. Maybe there is a strange garden gnome running around my house always when I'm not looking. Haven't seen one ever though. Maybe an alien pizza saucer flies over my place every night. Should I consider that possibility too?

Re: our Universe shouldn't exist. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47313759)

This is the point when I wish I was cooler and talking to girls. Alas no. I'll get everyone more beers and think that a large paycheck and all the things are not worth it. A round shots to go with it? Of course.

Re: our Universe shouldn't exist. (0)

Dcnjoe60 (682885) | about 4 months ago | (#47314319)

[quote]It's generally pointless to suggest that something might exist if there is no evidence towards it.[/quote]

That statement, if true, would seem to make the field of theoretical physics pointless.

Re: our Universe shouldn't exist. (4, Interesting)

Talderas (1212466) | about 4 months ago | (#47313787)

The difficulty with anonymous cowards is knowing when one is the same person. The coward to which Chrisq was responding was appeal to Descartes. The problem with Descartes is that you can only prove your own existence to yourself. In the event of some higher power deceiving you, the only proof you have is of your own existence. So even though you and others say that there's no evidence that I'm existing in a dream or simulation there's no way for me to verify their existence.

Re: our Universe shouldn't exist. (4, Funny)

Ol Olsoc (1175323) | about 4 months ago | (#47313851)

The problem with Descartes is that you can only prove your own existence to yourself. In the event of some higher power deceiving you, the only proof you have is of your own existence.

That's just what happens when you put Descartes before the horse.

Re: our Universe shouldn't exist. (4, Funny)

dcollins117 (1267462) | about 4 months ago | (#47313941)

Kant believe you just said that.

Bomb Philosophy (4, Funny)

TapeCutter (624760) | about 4 months ago | (#47313917)

Dark Star [youtube.com] was a lot funnier than the Matrix.

Re: our Universe shouldn't exist. (3, Insightful)

WankersRevenge (452399) | about 4 months ago | (#47314023)

I like Conan the Barbarian's answer (minus the hint of racism):

"Let me live deep while I live; let me know the rich juices of red meat and stinging wine on my palate, the hot embrace of white arms, the mad exultation of battle when the blue blades flame and crimson, and I am content. Let teachers and priests and philosophers brood over questions of reality and illusion. I know this: if life is illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me. I live, I burn with life, I love, I slay, and am content."

- Queen of the Black Coast, Robert E. Howard

Re: our Universe shouldn't exist. (1)

operagost (62405) | about 4 months ago | (#47314247)

I like Conan's daily To-Do list:

1. Crush your enemies.
2. See them driven before you.
3. Hear the lamentations of their women.

Re: our Universe shouldn't exist. (1)

Guy From V (1453391) | about 4 months ago | (#47314265)

That is good!

Re: our Universe shouldn't exist. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47314275)

I think I'd be more content too if I could slay.

Re: our Universe shouldn't exist. (1)

hardeep1singh (1272968) | about 4 months ago | (#47313493)

How do you know its not a dream? Can you fly when you want to? Its almost like some force us constantly trying to pull you down. Definitely a dream.

Re: our Universe shouldn't exist. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47313501)

Ergo cogito sum.

You think, therefore you think you are, you think?

Re: our Universe shouldn't exist. (1)

higuita (129722) | about 4 months ago | (#47313805)

There is no spoon!!

Dinger... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47313481)

Evidently we are living in a Schroedingerverse.

Thank you, I'll be here all week.

Re: our Universe shouldn't exist. (1)

gweihir (88907) | about 4 months ago | (#47313599)

Indeed. All this is really just an elaborate intelligence test. Seems to me that most people fail and that includes the particle-physicists...

Re: our Universe shouldn't exist. (1)

Hillgiant (916436) | about 4 months ago | (#47314141)

Wake up, gweihir. The matrix has you.

Re: our Universe shouldn't exist. (1)

rtb61 (674572) | about 4 months ago | (#47314065)

More logically with time just being a relative measure of change and that relative change itself being significant to itself the amount of time it takes is arbitrary. So relative motion with the sub dimensions of rest, constant speed and acceleration from and deceleration to rest, rather than completely arbitrary time which itself is only ever measured against change, is the more logical.

Analogy failure (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47313381)

The mathematics to arise from accepted Higgs field theory suggests the universe is currently sitting comfortably in a Higgs field energy 'valley.' To get out of this valley and up the adjacent 'hill,' huge quantities of energy would need to be unleashed inside the field.

I have no idea what the 'valley' represents, nor the 'hill' so this explanation tells me nothing.

Re:Analogy failure (1)

jandersen (462034) | about 4 months ago | (#47313525)

I have no idea what the 'valley' represents, nor the 'hill' so this explanation tells me nothing.

What I read into this metaphor is that the Higgs field is a 'scalar field' that varies only with the distance - so one can draw a graph with distance as the X-axis and 'Higgs' as the Y-axis. This graph has a local minimum, that looks like a 'valley', and one can imagine that it would be possible to 'push reality out of the valley' to the other side of one of the nearby, local maxima. No, I'm not it makes a lot of sense either.

Also, I'm not happy with the tendency in physics to 'run to the fields' and start talking about fields and vector bosons; adding yet another field to the flock doesn't bring our understanding to a deeper level, it only allows us to perform calculations within our existing understanding, and I feel we are running against the edge here.

This is a good example of the scientific method in action, really: we have theory and a prediction (namely, that the university doesn't exist); seeing that the prediction fails, we have to conclude that there is a flaw in the theory.

Article with explanation for laymen (5, Informative)

grimJester (890090) | about 4 months ago | (#47313829)

The mathematics to arise from accepted Higgs field theory suggests the universe is currently sitting comfortably in a Higgs field energy 'valley.' To get out of this valley and up the adjacent 'hill,' huge quantities of energy would need to be unleashed inside the field.

I have no idea what the 'valley' represents, nor the 'hill' so this explanation tells me nothing.

An article by Matt Strassler [profmattstrassler.com] that should explain more. In particular, this pic [wordpress.com]

The story about our vacuum having two 'valleys' depends crucially on no new physics existing beyond the already known fields, which is probably false.

Re:Article with explanation for laymen (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47314011)

Thank you for being the signal part of Slashdot's signal to noise ratio. Very interesting, nice explanation (I think).

'Particles are long-lived and simply-behaved ripples in fields' - actually makes sense to me. Whether it's correct or not will wait for some time, I suspect.

Fifth Amendment (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47313399)

Here's -- we know six things, Chris. We know first the targeting occurred.

Therefore, second, we know that this is worse than article two of the Nixon impeachment count, which said Nixon endeavored to use the IRS. The IRS back then resisted.

Third, we know that this became public in an act of deceit when Lois Lerner planted a question with a friend in an audience to try and get this out on her own terms.

Fourth, we know that she has taken the Fifth Amendment because she has a right to do this when she has a reasonable suspicion that there might be criminal activity involved.

Fifth, we know that from the timeline you put up today, that there has been 13 months of stonewalling on this.

And sixth, now we know that not only her hard drive, but six other people intimately involved in this suddenly crashed in an amazing miraculous coincidence. Religions have been founded on less, ten days after the investigation started.
-- George Will on Fox News Sunday this weekend

Re:Fifth Amendment (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47313645)

Cool story bro.

Re:Fifth Amendment (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47313671)

Whensoever therefore the legislative shall transgress this fundamental rule of society; and either by ambition, fear, folly or corruption, endeavour to grasp themselves, or put into the hands of any other, an absolute power over the lives, liberties, and estates of the people; by this breach of trust they forfeit the power the people had put into their hands for quite contrary ends, and it devolves to the people, who. have a right to resume their original liberty, and, by the establishment of a new legislative, (such as they shall think fit) provide for their own safety and security, which is the end for which they are in society.

Well, at least we know who's responsible (-1, Flamebait)

Krishnoid (984597) | about 4 months ago | (#47313401)

the newborn universe would appear as a Big Bang, the Higgs field would become overloaded with an energetic inflationary period, and the whole lot would vanish in a blink of an eye.

Thanks, Obama!

False vacuum (3, Interesting)

little1973 (467075) | about 4 months ago | (#47313413)

Isn't this the same as false vacuum theory?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F... [wikipedia.org]

Re:False vacuum (2)

Sockatume (732728) | about 4 months ago | (#47313465)

It's a false vacuum model, yes. Which is both exciting and quietly terrifying.

Re:False vacuum (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about 4 months ago | (#47313489)

I found an older article about the Higgs field instability itself; the instability arises because the field can be much stronger, leading to much higher particle masses and thus the big crunch alluded to. Although that's assuming that inertial and gravitational mass are still the same thing in such a domain...

http://www.livescience.com/273... [livescience.com]

Re:False vacuum (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about 4 months ago | (#47313577)

Actually I got this wrong, the large masses are a consequence of the instability, the instability itself arises because the Higgs self-interaction can, if these results are correct, become attractive at high energy densities (similar to those predicted for inflation). At that point it's all downhill.

Re:False vacuum (1)

ceview (2857765) | about 4 months ago | (#47313495)

Could we be saved by M-Theory or Brane cosmology then? The Higgs boson energy may get dissipated in someway by leaking into the 'bulk'? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B... [wikipedia.org]

Re:False vacuum (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47313845)

Hulk would probably beat Bane.

Re:False vacuum (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47313867)

BRANES! /oblig

Re:False vacuum (2)

Nutria (679911) | about 4 months ago | (#47313953)

Specifically, Zombie Feynman.

So, in conclusion. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47313421)

So, in conclusion of this meeting, we are in fact all dead.

Any questions?

Re:So, in conclusion. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47313815)

Well, hello there, J.J. Abrams.

That's not far fetched. (5, Insightful)

bickerdyke (670000) | about 4 months ago | (#47313467)

It doesn't seem far fetched at all that we don't fully understand the physics behind the Higgs boson. I'd rather say it's OBVIOUS that we don't understand the physics behind it.

A non-crushed universe should be proof enough that our current theories are missing something.

Re:That's not far fetched. (5, Insightful)

Sockatume (732728) | about 4 months ago | (#47313473)

Yes, but the interesting and not obvious result is in which ways our theories are incomplete, which guides the search for better ones.

Re:That's not far fetched. (1)

Jarik C-Bol (894741) | about 4 months ago | (#47313545)

Pretty much. When the math says that the universe does not exist, when, from all the other data we have, it clearly does exist, then you must assume you've done the math wrong somewhere.

Re:That's not far fetched. (1)

Lennie (16154) | about 4 months ago | (#47313719)

Probably can be easily fixed, just add a minus.

Re:That's not far fetched. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47313659)

It doesn't seem far fetched at all that we don't fully understand the physics behind the Higgs boson.

Indeed, but you miss the mark. What we don't understand is the physics *around* the Higgs. It's existence has implications that still have to be thought about. It will take a considerable amount of brainpower and time.

Re:That's not far fetched. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47313733)

What if the universe as a whole could tunnel through this energy barrier (hill)? It would take less energy vs. having to go over the top. What would this value be.
Are the black holes the mechanism to tunnel through this barrier or a form of relieving the pressure (energy) to prevent the buildup of all energy in the universe over time which would cause the universe to climb this hill. If the universe is a the minima in the energy curve, can the universe oscillate back and forth between the left and right side of the energy curve and passing through the minima? Is the back and forth oscillation from our view point expansion and contraction of some form?

Re:That's not far fetched. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47313747)

How does parallel universes fit into this model?

Re:That's not far fetched. (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | about 4 months ago | (#47313777)

A non-crushed universe should be proof enough that our current theories are missing something.

IANAP, but this seems easy to explain. We are observing our universe from the inside; To outside observers in other universes, our universe is crushed! We just can't tell because we, too, are crushed.

Is that how IANAx works?

Re:That's not far fetched. (1)

Nutria (679911) | about 4 months ago | (#47313989)

To outside observers in other universes, our universe is crushed! We just can't tell because we, too, are crushed.

Futurama 4ACV15: "The Farnsworth Parabox", especially the last scene.

Re:That's not far fetched. (1)

Paradise Pete (33184) | about 4 months ago | (#47313861)

A non-crushed universe should be proof enough that our current theories are missing something.

It's just further evidence that I am just a brain in a jar somewhere and you and everything else are figments of my (now apparently flawed) imagination. Sorry about all the misery and suffering n' stuff. But on the bright side, it's not really real.

Re:That's not far fetched. (1)

bickerdyke (670000) | about 4 months ago | (#47314059)

That there is /. in it should have been a giveaway that your imagination was flawed from the begining...

Re:That's not far fetched. (1)

jellomizer (103300) | about 4 months ago | (#47313995)

The most amazing thing about the universe is the smaller something gets the more complex it is. Which is at odds to our general world view, where larger things are more complex then smaller things.

Just the fact the odds that we are hear thinking about it is such amazingly low probability Infinity/finite is practically 0% chance that we exist.

Damn (1)

meglon (1001833) | about 4 months ago | (#47313469)

... and me without my earmuffs, mittens, and scarf.

CERN (2)

Max_W (812974) | about 4 months ago | (#47313475)

Later this year the CERN Collider will work for the first time at 100% power:
http://news.nationalgeographic... [nationalgeographic.com]
Perhaps, we will meet God at last.

And then the new, 100 km in diameter, Collider will be constructed at CERN.

Re:CERN (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47313505)

That would be 100km circumference, not diameter

Re:CERN (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47313797)

Yeah, you know, like your mom.

Re:CERN (1)

gweihir (88907) | about 4 months ago | (#47313593)

I don't think there is a risk. Unless all those black holes are what explains the Fermi-Paradox...

LHC live-cam: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... [youtube.com]

Observations and measurements disagree (4, Interesting)

johanw (1001493) | about 4 months ago | (#47313503)

The logical conclusion is that, because the current universe clearly exists, there is something wrong with either the BICEP2 measurements, conclusions or the theory of the Higgs field. IMO the first 2 options seems the most likely to contain an error. This kind of measurements is extremely complicated and a lot of assumtions are made to get from the raw data to the conclusions. The Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BICEP2) already states that they are backing down a bit and investigating alternative explainations.

Re:Observations and measurements disagree (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47313703)

The logical conclusion is that, because the current universe clearly exists....

eh, maybe this reailty & universe is just an echo of the collapse that has already happen.

Re:Observations and measurements disagree (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47313835)

I vote the "the Higgs Bogon" as the real name, This must be the 20th claim for discovery in the last 40 years, *none* of which have panned out, and the necessary mass-energies no longer make sense in terms of the original theory nor in terms of the current revised theory.

The biggest problem (-1, Troll)

justthinkit (954982) | about 4 months ago | (#47313865)

The biggest problem is not that the Higgs field/boson/theory is wrong. Nor that BICEP2 is wrong.

The biggest problem is that physicists do not want a new theory. Everyone gets paid and paid well to keep doing the usual stuff -- CMB, inflation, Big Bang, String Theory, smashing particles together and looking for the oldest star.

Physicists prefer stuff known to be wrong over stuff that might be right [just-think-it.com] .

Re:The biggest problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47314165)

Where are your maths?

This "spring and stuff" theory of yours is no theory at all. Where are your falsifiable predictions? Nowhere. You claim to be a chemist. Allow me to doubt even that.

Sounds like a Patrick Stewart speech (1)

nightcats (1114677) | about 4 months ago | (#47313517)

Hills and valleys, poetic images and wistful metaphors delivered with Shakespeareian bemusement over a cup of Earl Gray in the ready room, near the end of another episode's close shave with some Cosmic Anomaly or other. Perhaps Q is there as well [briandonohue.org] , whispering: "the trial never ends, Jean Luc..."

More like astrophysicist porn... (1)

The Grim Reefer (1162755) | about 4 months ago | (#47313807)

"pushing the Higgs field over the energy hill and deep into the neighboring valleyâ(TM)s precipice!"

It has already happened (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47313527)

And afterwards the crushed universe was replaced with this one.

Whoa (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47313531)

What if this IS the crushed universe? It looks huge to us but who knows...

Symmetry (0)

Jim Sadler (3430529) | about 4 months ago | (#47313555)

If the universe can to be in an instant then we could easily believe that it will end as quickly as it began. It is like a baby at birth with its forst gasp of air and an old man at death with his last gasp of air. Both gasps take about the same amount of time.

Crush Groove (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47313561)

Higgs Smash!

Physicists have too much time on their hands (-1, Troll)

gweihir (88907) | about 4 months ago | (#47313587)

At least what they are doing is better than, you know, developing the atomic bomb or something even more horrible.

Re:Physicists have too much time on their hands (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47313723)

Understanding the nature of the vacuum and how it responds to energy density is key to developing a weapon that could collapse the false vacuum and irreversibly destroy the entire universe.

Re:Physicists have too much time on their hands (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 4 months ago | (#47314045)

'You know how the Premiere loves surprises ... "

hmm that is interesting (1)

dominux (731134) | about 4 months ago | (#47313609)

interesting things herald good science. Uncertainty and a collection of speculative theories are a good thing.
"Hmm, that is interesting" > "Eureka!"

Dammit! (1)

DaWhilly (2555136) | about 4 months ago | (#47313619)

Dammit!

If they collapse the probability wave function and it results a universe collapse, I'll be seriously depressed.. Practically crushed about it..

Oh, great... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47313623)

Now christians will quote mine the hell out of that article to "prove" the existence of yaweh

Why not the same local minimum? (1)

pla (258480) | about 4 months ago | (#47313635)

Okay, so a lower minumum energy exists just past that peak... But even if the early universe reached the peak between the two valleys, why couldn't the Higgs' field have simply fallen back into the current local-but-not-global minimum?

Do deeper lows actually somehow attract the evolution of the field, or did $Deity flip a coin that, fortunately for us, came out heads instead of tails?

So what you're saying is that there's still hope! (1)

mark_reh (2015546) | about 4 months ago | (#47313641)

I would not mind if it all just went away in an instant. It would sure save a lot of trouble.

Re:So what you're saying is that there's still hop (-1, Flamebait)

giorgist (1208992) | about 4 months ago | (#47313803)

You do know you can single handedly make that happen but I do recommend against it. Life is such a nice thing to have

Re:So what you're saying is that there's still hop (1)

Kookus (653170) | about 4 months ago | (#47314179)

The best thing is you won't feel a thing or even see it coming!
Spaghettification, fire, drowning, blunt force trauma, radiation poisoning... all rather painful even if only for a split second. This, it even prevents the electrons from being picked up and interpreted as pain!

Yes, it could be but is it AG? (3, Funny)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | about 4 months ago | (#47313685)

OK, OK, Higgs field is quite dangerous, and right now we seem to be sitting in the just-the-right-value. And if the Higgs field gets more energy the whole universe might collapse. But the most important question is, "Is the lower Higgs field energy anthropogenetic?". Do we have any kind of plans to absorb sudden injection of high energy into Higgs field in Andromeda galaxy? I never trusted the Andromedans and we are just trusting them not to energize the Higgs field? Just bomb them just to be safe.

Re:Yes, it could be but is it AG? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47313813)

Sombody needs to mod this up right now.

Re:Yes, it could be but is it AG? (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 4 months ago | (#47313899)

I never trusted the Andromedans and we are just trusting them not to energize the Higgs field?

I think they are too busy trying to win the Wimbledon.

narf (2)

martin-boundary (547041) | about 4 months ago | (#47313715)

Gee Brain, what do you want to tonight?
The same thing we do every night, Pinky - try to push the universe up the energy hill!
Egad!

Finally!! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47313727)

Now we know where to build the restaurant!

The explanation is obvious... (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 4 months ago | (#47313871)

Some awfully nosy guy discovered exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here.

deism (1)

TheSHAD0W (258774) | about 4 months ago | (#47313875)

Obviously, God siphoned off the excess energy.

Maybe our universe was crushed... (1)

tortovroddle (1969948) | about 4 months ago | (#47313877)

"There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened."

Trying to understand (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47313905)

How would the Higgs potentially "crush" the Universe? Right after the Big Bang, the Universe experience a hyper-inflationary period of space expanding much greater than the speed of light. With galaxies moving away from each other faster than light and space-time expansion itself already having moved stuff all over space, there was already no hope for the entire Universe to collapse.

Local regions of the Universe could have experienced a "crush", but there's no way the entire Universe could have been "crushed" into the same object.

shiT. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47313921)

contr1buted cVode

Woops! (1)

Reisbombe (3448413) | about 4 months ago | (#47313981)

He misspelled BICEP5.

Not the expected result on a hilly energy surface (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47314099)

Except that isn't what you would expect to actually happen given an energy surface and 'cooling' there will be finite probabilities to end up in even the shallowest of local minima. To be sure, the probability is non-zero and depends upon the manner of cooling and how the energy surface ultimately changes as cooling occurs. This is why not all proteins end up in beta-amyloid form, and why many other countless energetically unfavorable phenomena occur (like our atmosphere being nitrogen rather than ammonia)...

Basic concept in thermodynamics really...

97% (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47314119)

Do 97% of the scientists agree that the universe should have imploded? Do they understand the global climate better than they understand Higgs?

I've got this covered. (1)

Varka (767489) | about 4 months ago | (#47314303)

The universe DID expand, immediately collapse into another super-massive black hole, and we're all just echoes in the subsequent Hawking radiation that's been released. The "accelerating universe" phenomenon is actually our local space/time having been slowed down by this super-massive black hole rather than distant galaxies speeding up. Make the Nobel Prize out to "Varka, of the Hill People."
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?