Manlinose Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 assuming i have understood the tiny bit of this i think i understand, and that is a massive assumption, at some time in the distant future, the universe is going to be destroyed by a bubble which is going to expand at the speed of light, "sweeping everything before it" http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21499765 i appreciate this is all just a theory based on other theories and assumptions, but there is virtually nothing in the article that i understand, and i'm not overly stupid i know there are a few sciencey types on here who will probably understand this, be able to explain it, and be able to argue intelligently as to why it is either a very likely scenario or complete claptrap, but my cat has as much chance of understanding it as i have how on earth do you get to be so clever to be able to make sense out of things like this, never mind to actually come up with them in the first place Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Hans Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 Well unless you get the fundamental concepts, as in...unless you were taught them, it's always going to be esoteric. They are difficult concepts to understand because they're written to be understood by those with extensive knowledge of the subject and even the BBC finds it difficult to make it more accessible. It's not that you're not clever enough. If you tried to explain your job to somebody to somebody without a knowledge of the fundamentals it would be hard for them to understand. Minute Physics on Youtube is a great way to get your head around complicated physics concepts in a simple way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 You need a good natural ability at maths and then a lot of study. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 Just somebody trying to make a name for themselves by coming up with a statement/theory people are unlikely to be able to prove or disprove. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 If the calculation on vacuum instability stands up, it will revive an old idea that the Big Bang Universe we observe today is just the latest version in a permanent cycle of events. It’s not a new idea; science is just starting to find the evidence that might support what many people have always thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 Why would anyone think it before there was evidence to suggest that it might be the case? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
max Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 I was intrigued at the op so started to read the article. I must admit there were bits that puzzled me, such as reference to a boson which I considered I may have to look up info about before going any further. However, I read this bit: It was not something we need worry about, he said. The Sun and the Earth will be long gone by this time. so lost the will to read any further. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dromedary Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 You need a good natural ability at maths and then a lot of study. And some insight/gut instinct just like Einstein had. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 Why would anyone think it before there was evidence to suggest that it might be the case? Because it normal for humans to think about things even before there is evidence that such a thing is possible, I think it has something to do with intelligence and imagination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 Ha- when I read "Cosmos may be 'inherently unstable' ", I though that it meant the New York Cosmos (http://uk.ask.com/web?q=%22New+York+Cosmos%22&sm=adv&advc=us&dm=adv&qsrc=66&o=0&l=dir&siteid=0) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.