宇宙はおよそ140億年前に無から生まれ、超高温の火の玉の状態から今に至るまで膨張し続けていますが、永遠の存在ではなく、いずれ終わりがくるといわれています。
現代の物理学の観点から考えられる「宇宙の終わり」の4つの可能性について海外メディアのcuriosityが説明しています。
How Will the Universe End? Here Are 4 Possibilities
https://curiosity.com/topics/how-will-the-universe-end-here-are-4-possibilities-curiosity/
宇宙の膨張を主張する「ビッグバン仮説」は1920年代に唱えられました。その後、銀河の波長に見られる赤方偏移や宇宙背景放射など、宇宙が膨張している証拠が発見されたことで、ビッグバン仮説は定説として受け入れられました。
しかし、宇宙が変化し続けているという考えは「宇宙にも終わりがあるのではないか」という疑問を生み、多くの天文学者・物理学者を悩ませることになりました。2018年現在、宇宙の終わりについては4つの可能性が示唆されています。
◆1：宇宙の熱的死
宇宙の温度は均一ではなく、高い温度の場所もあれば、低い温度の場所も存在します。「熱は高い温度から低い温度へ移動し、その逆は成立しない」という熱力学第二法則に基づいて考えた場合、長い目で見ると宇宙全体のエネルギーは均一に近づいていくといえます。宇宙全体のエネルギーが均一になるということは「何も現象が起こらない」という「宇宙の熱的死」を意味します。
この説は「宇宙全体のエネルギーが有限である」「宇宙が永遠に膨張し続ける」という考えが前提になっています。ただし、宇宙の有限性は証明されていないため、必ずしも宇宙が熱的死を迎えるとはいえません。
◆2：ビッグクランチ
膨張を続けている宇宙が、ある時点で膨張から収縮に転じ、まるでぱんぱんに膨らんだ風船から空気が抜けるようにしぼみ、最終的に無次元の特異点に収縮してしまうという考え方が「ビッグクランチ」です。この特異点は宇宙の終わりだけではなく、新しい宇宙の始まりに繋がるのではないかと考える科学者も存在します。
◆3：ビッグリップ
宇宙の全エネルギーの約68％を占めているといわれているのが、「ダークエネルギー」と呼ばれる仮説上のエネルギーです。ダークエネルギーは宇宙の膨張を加速させている原因と考えられていて、エネルギー密度が時間と共に増加していると仮定した場合、いずれ自然界を構成する4つの力すら上回り、宇宙全体が素粒子レベルでバラバラになってしまうという「ビッグリップ」という現象で宇宙が終わってしまうと予想されています。
ビッグリップ仮説は2003年に提唱された、比較的新しい仮説です。しかし、ダークエネルギーの密度が増加を示すような兆候が観測されていないことから、多くの科学者はビッグリップ仮説に対して否定的です。宇宙理論物理学者であるケイティー・マック氏は、2018年7月に行われた講演で「仮にビッグリップが訪れるとしても、少なくとも1200億年はかかると考えられるので、安心してお待ちください」と述べています。
◆4：真空崩壊
宇宙物理学や量子力学の世界では、「物質が一切存在しないが、最低限のエネルギーを固有している場の状態」を「真空」と呼びます。また、真空に近い準安定状態であり、真空よりも大きなエネルギーを固有している場の状態を「偽の真空」と呼びます。非常に難しい話ですが、例えるなら、真空とは「波一つなく穏やかな湖」、偽の真空とは「波一つなく穏やかな『山上』の湖」です。私たちが生きている宇宙を満たしている真空が真の真空なのか偽の真空なのかは、未だに判明していません。
https://i.gzn.jp/img/2018/08/22/universe-end-possibility/a01.jpg
https://gigazine.net/news/20180822-universe-end-possibility/
続く）
【物理学】「宇宙の終わり」について現代の物理学から予想される4つの可能性とは？[08/22]
■ このスレッドは過去ログ倉庫に格納されています
2018/08/22(水) 07:57:04.46ID:CAP_USER
85ニュースソース検討中＠自治議論スレ
2018/08/22(水) 12:20:15.24ID:X6dN1jym >>1
How the Universe Got Its Bounce Back
Cosmologists have shown that it’s theoretically possible for a contracting universe to bounce and expand.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/big-bounce-models-reignite-big-bang-debate-20180131/
画像
https://d2r55xnwy6nx47.cloudfront.net/uploads/2018/01/ACosmicMystery560-808x1720.jpg
Apparent evidence for Hawking points in the CMB Sky
https://arxiv.org/abs/1808.01740
Daniel An, Krzysztof A. Meissner, Roger Penrose
(Submitted on 6 Aug 2018)
This paper presents powerful observational evidence of anomalous individual points in the very early universe that
appear to be sources of vast amounts of energy, revealed as specific signals found in the CMB sky. Though seemingly
problematic for cosmic inflation, the existence of such anomalous points is an implication of conformal cyclic
cosmology (CCC), as what could be the Hawking points of the theory, these being the effects of the final Hawking
evaporation of supermassive black holes in the aeon prior to ours. Although of extremely low temperature at emission,
in CCC this radiation is enormously concentrated by the conformal compression of the entire future of the black hole,
resulting in a single point at the crossover into our current aeon, with the emission of vast numbers of particles, whose
effects we appear to be seeing as the observed anomalous points. Remarkably, the B-mode location found by BICEP 2
is at one of these anomalous points.
http://www.uyscuti.net/the-big-bounce/
How the Universe Got Its Bounce Back
Cosmologists have shown that it’s theoretically possible for a contracting universe to bounce and expand.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/big-bounce-models-reignite-big-bang-debate-20180131/
画像
https://d2r55xnwy6nx47.cloudfront.net/uploads/2018/01/ACosmicMystery560-808x1720.jpg
Apparent evidence for Hawking points in the CMB Sky
https://arxiv.org/abs/1808.01740
Daniel An, Krzysztof A. Meissner, Roger Penrose
(Submitted on 6 Aug 2018)
This paper presents powerful observational evidence of anomalous individual points in the very early universe that
appear to be sources of vast amounts of energy, revealed as specific signals found in the CMB sky. Though seemingly
problematic for cosmic inflation, the existence of such anomalous points is an implication of conformal cyclic
cosmology (CCC), as what could be the Hawking points of the theory, these being the effects of the final Hawking
evaporation of supermassive black holes in the aeon prior to ours. Although of extremely low temperature at emission,
in CCC this radiation is enormously concentrated by the conformal compression of the entire future of the black hole,
resulting in a single point at the crossover into our current aeon, with the emission of vast numbers of particles, whose
effects we appear to be seeing as the observed anomalous points. Remarkably, the B-mode location found by BICEP 2
is at one of these anomalous points.
http://www.uyscuti.net/the-big-bounce/
86ニュースソース検討中＠自治議論スレ
2018/08/22(水) 12:20:56.28ID:YUoMVIg7 ・先手の勝ち
・後手の勝ち
・千日手
もう一つは？
・後手の勝ち
・千日手
もう一つは？
87ニュースソース検討中＠自治議論スレ
2018/08/22(水) 12:21:14.50ID:H/rfcmo2 【ヒトラーも、ユダヤ】 トランプ大統領、ペンス副大統領「キリスト再臨の為にイスラエルは造られた」
http://rosie.5ch.net/test/read.cgi/liveplus/1534902628/l50
ほら、やっぱり陰謀論は本当じゃん
http://rosie.5ch.net/test/read.cgi/liveplus/1534902628/l50
ほら、やっぱり陰謀論は本当じゃん
88ニュースソース検討中＠自治議論スレ
2018/08/22(水) 12:22:22.77ID:X6dN1jym https://arxiv.org/pdf/1512.01203.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Susskind#Smolin%E2%80%93Susskind_debate
Smolin–Susskind debate
The Smolin–Susskind debate refers to the series of intense postings in 2004 between Lee Smolin and Susskind,
concerning Smolin’s argument that the "anthropic principle cannot yield any falsifiable predictions, and therefore
cannot be a part of science."[36] It began on July 26, 2004, with Smolin's publication of "Scientific alternatives
to the anthropic principle". Smolin e-mailed Susskind asking for a comment. Having not had the chance to read
the paper, Susskind requested a summarization of his arguments. Smolin obliged, and on July 28, 2004, Susskind
responded, saying that the logic Smolin followed "can lead to ridiculous conclusions".[36] The next day, Smolin
responded, saying that "If a large body of our colleagues feels comfortable believing a theory that cannot be proved
wrong, then the progress of science could get stuck, leading to a situation in which false, but unfalsifiable theories
dominate the attention of our field." This was followed by another paper by Susskind which made a few comments
about Smolin's theory of
"cosmic natural selection".[37]
The Smolin-Susskind debate finally ended with each of them agreeing to write a final letter which would be posted
on the edge.org website, with three conditions attached: (1) No more than one letter each; (2) Neither sees the other's
letter in advance; (3) No changes after the fact.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Susskind#Smolin%E2%80%93Susskind_debate
Smolin–Susskind debate
The Smolin–Susskind debate refers to the series of intense postings in 2004 between Lee Smolin and Susskind,
concerning Smolin’s argument that the "anthropic principle cannot yield any falsifiable predictions, and therefore
cannot be a part of science."[36] It began on July 26, 2004, with Smolin's publication of "Scientific alternatives
to the anthropic principle". Smolin e-mailed Susskind asking for a comment. Having not had the chance to read
the paper, Susskind requested a summarization of his arguments. Smolin obliged, and on July 28, 2004, Susskind
responded, saying that the logic Smolin followed "can lead to ridiculous conclusions".[36] The next day, Smolin
responded, saying that "If a large body of our colleagues feels comfortable believing a theory that cannot be proved
wrong, then the progress of science could get stuck, leading to a situation in which false, but unfalsifiable theories
dominate the attention of our field." This was followed by another paper by Susskind which made a few comments
about Smolin's theory of
"cosmic natural selection".[37]
The Smolin-Susskind debate finally ended with each of them agreeing to write a final letter which would be posted
on the edge.org website, with three conditions attached: (1) No more than one letter each; (2) Neither sees the other's
letter in advance; (3) No changes after the fact.
89ニュースソース検討中＠自治議論スレ
2018/08/22(水) 12:23:06.69ID:X6dN1jym Inflationary paradigm in trouble after Planck2013
https://arxiv.org/abs/1304.2785
Recent results from the Planck satellite combined with earlier observations from WMAP, ACT, SPT and other
experiments eliminate a wide spectrum of more complex inflationary models and favor models with a single
scalar field, as reported by the Planck Collaboration. More important, though, is that all the simplest inflaton
models are disfavored statistically relative to those with plateau-like potentials. We discuss how a restriction to
plateau-like models has three independent serious drawbacks: it exacerbates both the initial conditions problem
and the multiverse-unpredictability problem and it creates a new difficulty that we call the inflationary
"unlikeliness problem." Finally, we comment on problems reconciling inflation with a standard model Higgs,
as suggested by recent LHC results. In sum, we find that recent experimental data disfavors all the best-motivated
inflationary scenarios and introduces new, serious difficulties that cut to the core of the inflationary paradigm.
Forthcoming searches for B-modes, non-Gaussianity and new particles should be decisive.
Inflationary schism
AnnaIjjasaPaul J.SteinhardtbcAbrahamLoebd
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269314004985?via%3Dihub
https://arxiv.org/abs/1304.2785
Recent results from the Planck satellite combined with earlier observations from WMAP, ACT, SPT and other
experiments eliminate a wide spectrum of more complex inflationary models and favor models with a single
scalar field, as reported by the Planck Collaboration. More important, though, is that all the simplest inflaton
models are disfavored statistically relative to those with plateau-like potentials. We discuss how a restriction to
plateau-like models has three independent serious drawbacks: it exacerbates both the initial conditions problem
and the multiverse-unpredictability problem and it creates a new difficulty that we call the inflationary
"unlikeliness problem." Finally, we comment on problems reconciling inflation with a standard model Higgs,
as suggested by recent LHC results. In sum, we find that recent experimental data disfavors all the best-motivated
inflationary scenarios and introduces new, serious difficulties that cut to the core of the inflationary paradigm.
Forthcoming searches for B-modes, non-Gaussianity and new particles should be decisive.
Inflationary schism
AnnaIjjasaPaul J.SteinhardtbcAbrahamLoebd
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269314004985?via%3Dihub
90ニュースソース検討中＠自治議論スレ
2018/08/22(水) 12:24:14.30ID:X6dN1jym 地味ではあるが標準モデルは結果を出している
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_dark_matter
Lambda CDM model
Since the late 1980s or 1990s, most cosmologists favor the cold dark matter theory (specifically the modern
Lambda-CDM model) as a description of how the Universe went from a smooth initial state at early times
(as shown by the cosmic microwave background radiation) to the lumpy distribution of galaxies and their
clusters we see today — the large-scale structure of the Universe. The theory sees the role that dwarf galaxies
played as crucial, as they are thought to be natural building blocks that form larger structures, created by
small-scale density fluctuations in the early Universe.[5]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model#Successes
Successes
In addition to explaining pre-2000 observations, the model has made a number of successful predictions:
notably the existence of the baryon acoustic oscillation feature, discovered in 2005 in the predicted location; and
the statistics of weak gravitational lensing, first observed in 2000 by several teams. The polarization of the CMB,
discovered in 2002 by DASI [9] is now a dramatic success: in the 2015 Planck data release,[10] there are seven
observed peaks in the temperature (TT) power spectrum, six peaks in the temperature-polarization (TE) cross
spectrum, and five peaks in the polarization (EE) spectrum. The six free parameters can be well constrained by
the TT spectrum alone, and then the TE and EE spectra can be predicted theoretically to few-percent precision
with no further adjustments allowed: comparison of theory and observations shows an excellent match.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_dark_matter
Lambda CDM model
Since the late 1980s or 1990s, most cosmologists favor the cold dark matter theory (specifically the modern
Lambda-CDM model) as a description of how the Universe went from a smooth initial state at early times
(as shown by the cosmic microwave background radiation) to the lumpy distribution of galaxies and their
clusters we see today — the large-scale structure of the Universe. The theory sees the role that dwarf galaxies
played as crucial, as they are thought to be natural building blocks that form larger structures, created by
small-scale density fluctuations in the early Universe.[5]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model#Successes
Successes
In addition to explaining pre-2000 observations, the model has made a number of successful predictions:
notably the existence of the baryon acoustic oscillation feature, discovered in 2005 in the predicted location; and
the statistics of weak gravitational lensing, first observed in 2000 by several teams. The polarization of the CMB,
discovered in 2002 by DASI [9] is now a dramatic success: in the 2015 Planck data release,[10] there are seven
observed peaks in the temperature (TT) power spectrum, six peaks in the temperature-polarization (TE) cross
spectrum, and five peaks in the polarization (EE) spectrum. The six free parameters can be well constrained by
the TT spectrum alone, and then the TE and EE spectra can be predicted theoretically to few-percent precision
with no further adjustments allowed: comparison of theory and observations shows an excellent match.
91ニュースソース検討中＠自治議論スレ
2018/08/22(水) 12:24:41.59ID:X6dN1jym https://www.nature.com/news/did-a-hyper-black-hole-spawn-the-universe-1.13743
ブラックホールとホワイトホール、ホーキング照射の関係を考えるとありそうではある
しかし事象の地平面の物理法則、情報が分からないので、ブラックホールに行って確かめるしかない
それでもまだ、検証不可能な理論よりはマシと感じる
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermassive_black_hole
131億年以前からあると確認された ULAS J1342+0928 もだがブラックホールの形成過程を正確に観測できるようになったら
インフレーション理論は完全に息絶える可能性が高い（これまでもプランク2013/2015で観測結果と一致していないので、これだけ一致するとは思えない）
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1603.05834.pdf
One key challenge for inflation is the singularity problem. If inflation is realized by the dynamics of scalar matter
fields coupled to Einstein gravity, then the HawkingPenrose singularity theorems [7] can be extended [8] to
show that an inflationary universe is geodesically past incomplete. Thus, there necessarily is a singularity before
the onset of inflation. Hence, the inflationary scenario cannot yield the complete history of the very early universe.
A bouncing cosmological scenario naturally avoids this singularity problem, although at the cost of having
to introduce new physics to obtain the bounce
ブラックホールとホワイトホール、ホーキング照射の関係を考えるとありそうではある
しかし事象の地平面の物理法則、情報が分からないので、ブラックホールに行って確かめるしかない
それでもまだ、検証不可能な理論よりはマシと感じる
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermassive_black_hole
131億年以前からあると確認された ULAS J1342+0928 もだがブラックホールの形成過程を正確に観測できるようになったら
インフレーション理論は完全に息絶える可能性が高い（これまでもプランク2013/2015で観測結果と一致していないので、これだけ一致するとは思えない）
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1603.05834.pdf
One key challenge for inflation is the singularity problem. If inflation is realized by the dynamics of scalar matter
fields coupled to Einstein gravity, then the HawkingPenrose singularity theorems [7] can be extended [8] to
show that an inflationary universe is geodesically past incomplete. Thus, there necessarily is a singularity before
the onset of inflation. Hence, the inflationary scenario cannot yield the complete history of the very early universe.
A bouncing cosmological scenario naturally avoids this singularity problem, although at the cost of having
to introduce new physics to obtain the bounce
92ニュースソース検討中＠自治議論スレ
2018/08/22(水) 12:25:32.58ID:X6dN1jym Jamie Seidel (7 December 2017).
"Black hole at the dawn of time challenges our understanding of how the universe was formed".
9 December 2017.
It had reached its size just 690 million years after the point beyond which there is nothing. The most dominant
scientific theory of recent years describes that point as the Big Bang — a spontaneous eruption of reality as we
know it out of a quantum singularity. But another idea has recently been gaining weight: that the universe goes
through periodic expansions and contractions — resulting in a “Big Bounce”. And the existence of early black holes
has been predicted to be a key telltale as to whether or not the idea may be valid. This one is very big. To get to
its size — 800 million times more mass than our Sun — it must have swallowed a lot of stuff.
....
As far as we understand it, the universe simply wasn’t old enough at that time to generate such a monster.
"Black hole at the dawn of time challenges our understanding of how the universe was formed".
9 December 2017.
It had reached its size just 690 million years after the point beyond which there is nothing. The most dominant
scientific theory of recent years describes that point as the Big Bang — a spontaneous eruption of reality as we
know it out of a quantum singularity. But another idea has recently been gaining weight: that the universe goes
through periodic expansions and contractions — resulting in a “Big Bounce”. And the existence of early black holes
has been predicted to be a key telltale as to whether or not the idea may be valid. This one is very big. To get to
its size — 800 million times more mass than our Sun — it must have swallowed a lot of stuff.
....
As far as we understand it, the universe simply wasn’t old enough at that time to generate such a monster.
93ニュースソース検討中＠自治議論スレ
2018/08/22(水) 12:26:39.99ID:X6dN1jym >>91
Out of the White Hole: A Holographic Origin for the Big Bang
https://arxiv.org/abs/1309.1487
While most of the singularities of General Relativity are expected to be safely hidden behind event horizons by the
cosmic censorship conjecture, we happen to live in the causal future of the classical big bang singularity, whose
resolution constitutes the active field of early universe cosmology. Could the big bang be also hidden behind a
causal horizon, making us immune to the decadent impacts of a naked singularity? We describe a braneworld
description of cosmology with both 4d induced and 5d bulk gravity (otherwise known as Dvali-Gabadadze-Porati, or
DGP model), which exhibits this feature: The universe emerges as a spherical 3-brane out of the formation of a 5d
Schwarzschild black hole. In particular, we show that a pressure singularity of the holographic fluid, discovered
earlier, happens inside the white hole horizon, and thus need not be real or imply any pathology. Furthermore,
we outline a novel mechanism through which any thermal atmosphere for the brane, with comoving temperature
of 20% of the 5D Planck mass can induce scale-invariant primordial curvature perturbations on the brane, circumventing
the need for a separate process (such as cosmic inflation) to explain current cosmological observations. Finally,
we note that 5D space-time is asymptotically flat, and thus potentially allows an S-matrix or (after minor modifications)
AdS/CFT description of the cosmological big bang.
Out of the White Hole: A Holographic Origin for the Big Bang
https://arxiv.org/abs/1309.1487
While most of the singularities of General Relativity are expected to be safely hidden behind event horizons by the
cosmic censorship conjecture, we happen to live in the causal future of the classical big bang singularity, whose
resolution constitutes the active field of early universe cosmology. Could the big bang be also hidden behind a
causal horizon, making us immune to the decadent impacts of a naked singularity? We describe a braneworld
description of cosmology with both 4d induced and 5d bulk gravity (otherwise known as Dvali-Gabadadze-Porati, or
DGP model), which exhibits this feature: The universe emerges as a spherical 3-brane out of the formation of a 5d
Schwarzschild black hole. In particular, we show that a pressure singularity of the holographic fluid, discovered
earlier, happens inside the white hole horizon, and thus need not be real or imply any pathology. Furthermore,
we outline a novel mechanism through which any thermal atmosphere for the brane, with comoving temperature
of 20% of the 5D Planck mass can induce scale-invariant primordial curvature perturbations on the brane, circumventing
the need for a separate process (such as cosmic inflation) to explain current cosmological observations. Finally,
we note that 5D space-time is asymptotically flat, and thus potentially allows an S-matrix or (after minor modifications)
AdS/CFT description of the cosmological big bang.
94ニュースソース検討中＠自治議論スレ
2018/08/22(水) 12:29:12.46ID:X6dN1jym 弦理論の次元は単なる数式上のもので、ファインチューニングとして批判されるのは当然だろう
相対性理論と量子論のとてつもない誤差は問題ではあるが、だからといって数式内に次元を増やせば良いだけの問題ではない
モデルに（検証不可能なために気づくことができない）致命的な穴がありそれが無限の宇宙インフレーションを導いている可能性もある
いくらでも解釈をでっちあげられるようになると、仮説の奇抜さで勝負しようとする輩がふえる
特に一昨年あたりからだと思うが、無限インフレーション・無限マルチバース理論に疑念を呈す声が増えている
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1603.05834.pdf
One key challenge for inflation is the singularity problem. If inflation is realized by the dynamics of scalar matter
fields coupled to Einstein gravity, then the HawkingPenrose singularity theorems [7] can be extended [8] to
show that an inflationary universe is geodesically past incomplete. Thus, there necessarily is a singularity before
the onset of inflation. Hence, the inflationary scenario cannot yield the complete history of the very early universe.
A bouncing cosmological scenario naturally avoids this singularity problem, although at the cost of having
to introduce new physics to obtain the bounce
131億年以前からあると確認された ULAS J1342+0928 超巨大ブラックホールもだがブラックホールの形成過程を正確に観測できるようになったら
インフレーション理論は完全に息絶える可能性が高い（これまでもプランク2013/2015で観測結果と一致していないので、これだけ一致するとは思えない）
相対性理論と量子論のとてつもない誤差は問題ではあるが、だからといって数式内に次元を増やせば良いだけの問題ではない
モデルに（検証不可能なために気づくことができない）致命的な穴がありそれが無限の宇宙インフレーションを導いている可能性もある
いくらでも解釈をでっちあげられるようになると、仮説の奇抜さで勝負しようとする輩がふえる
特に一昨年あたりからだと思うが、無限インフレーション・無限マルチバース理論に疑念を呈す声が増えている
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1603.05834.pdf
One key challenge for inflation is the singularity problem. If inflation is realized by the dynamics of scalar matter
fields coupled to Einstein gravity, then the HawkingPenrose singularity theorems [7] can be extended [8] to
show that an inflationary universe is geodesically past incomplete. Thus, there necessarily is a singularity before
the onset of inflation. Hence, the inflationary scenario cannot yield the complete history of the very early universe.
A bouncing cosmological scenario naturally avoids this singularity problem, although at the cost of having
to introduce new physics to obtain the bounce
131億年以前からあると確認された ULAS J1342+0928 超巨大ブラックホールもだがブラックホールの形成過程を正確に観測できるようになったら
インフレーション理論は完全に息絶える可能性が高い（これまでもプランク2013/2015で観測結果と一致していないので、これだけ一致するとは思えない）
2018/08/22(水) 12:30:54.20ID:rl1ZdnTA
>>35
逆に劇中の名前が平凡すぎて忘れてたw
逆に劇中の名前が平凡すぎて忘れてたw
96ニュースソース検討中＠自治議論スレ
2018/08/22(水) 12:32:10.76ID:X6dN1jym >>1
相対性理論と量子論のとてつもない予想誤差と、超巨大ブラックホールの観測によって起きる問題を解決しうる仮説ということで
注目を集めているのがサイクリック宇宙論とビッグバウンスだ
Bouncing Cosmologies: Progress and Problems
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1603.05834.pdf
カトリックの司祭であり、副業で物理学者―ビッグバンを提唱したジョルジュ・ルメートルのフェニックス宇宙理論は
数年前から注目を集めているサイクリック宇宙論と類似しているのは、奇妙な因果ではある
The Return of the Phoenix Universe
Jean-Luc Lehners, Paul J. Steinhardt, Neil Turok
(Submitted on 5 Oct 2009)
ttps://arxiv.org/abs/0910.0834
ジョルジュ・ルメートルは一般相対性理論から派生したFLRWからビッグバン理論を提唱していた
相対性理論と量子論のとてつもない予想誤差と、超巨大ブラックホールの観測によって起きる問題を解決しうる仮説ということで
注目を集めているのがサイクリック宇宙論とビッグバウンスだ
Bouncing Cosmologies: Progress and Problems
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1603.05834.pdf
カトリックの司祭であり、副業で物理学者―ビッグバンを提唱したジョルジュ・ルメートルのフェニックス宇宙理論は
数年前から注目を集めているサイクリック宇宙論と類似しているのは、奇妙な因果ではある
The Return of the Phoenix Universe
Jean-Luc Lehners, Paul J. Steinhardt, Neil Turok
(Submitted on 5 Oct 2009)
ttps://arxiv.org/abs/0910.0834
ジョルジュ・ルメートルは一般相対性理論から派生したFLRWからビッグバン理論を提唱していた
97ニュースソース検討中＠自治議論スレ
2018/08/22(水) 12:34:30.56ID:hkRKYD7W 真空と無って何が違うんだ？
2018/08/22(水) 12:46:36.37ID:C4tcIg0g
地平面の面積は有限に収束すると思うんだ。宇宙は無限に広がり続けることはない。熱的死と見分けはつかないかもしれないけれど。
99よっちゃん
2018/08/22(水) 12:53:31.47ID:Ya3TlmdM ゼロ除算（ゼロじょざん、division by zero）1/0=0、0/0=0、z/0=0
https://ameblo.jp/syoshinoris/entry-12396061042.html
再生核研究所声明 438(2018.8.6): ゼロ除算1/0=0/0=z/0=\tan(\pi/2)=0 の誤解について
https://ameblo.jp/syoshinoris/entry-12395938350.html
ゼロ除算（ゼロじょざん、division by zero）1/0=0、0/0=0、z/0=0
https://ameblo.jp/syoshinoris/entry-12394775733.html
1/0は「不能」、0/0は「不定」と習った。
http://world-fusigi.net/archives/9135381.html
従来の考えはその通りです：
新しい考え方によれば、それらはいずれも可能で結果はいずれも0です：美しい結果ができました：
なぜ0で割れない？0（ゼロ）で割れない理由をプロが説明してみた
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52i0wQurFJ8 👀
Rock54: Caution(BBR-MD5:1341adc37120578f18dba9451e6c8c3b)
https://ameblo.jp/syoshinoris/entry-12396061042.html
再生核研究所声明 438(2018.8.6): ゼロ除算1/0=0/0=z/0=\tan(\pi/2)=0 の誤解について
https://ameblo.jp/syoshinoris/entry-12395938350.html
ゼロ除算（ゼロじょざん、division by zero）1/0=0、0/0=0、z/0=0
https://ameblo.jp/syoshinoris/entry-12394775733.html
1/0は「不能」、0/0は「不定」と習った。
http://world-fusigi.net/archives/9135381.html
従来の考えはその通りです：
新しい考え方によれば、それらはいずれも可能で結果はいずれも0です：美しい結果ができました：
なぜ0で割れない？0（ゼロ）で割れない理由をプロが説明してみた
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52i0wQurFJ8 👀
Rock54: Caution(BBR-MD5:1341adc37120578f18dba9451e6c8c3b)
100ニュースソース検討中＠自治議論スレ
2018/08/22(水) 13:01:01.85ID:X6dN1jym http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/08/tiny-black-holes-could-trigger-collapse-universe-except-they-dont
The real point, Moss says, is that theorists can no longer shrug off the problem by assuming that the collapse of
the vacuum would take a hugely long time. By showing that—according to the standard model—the collapse
should happen quickly, the paper suggests that some new physics must kick in to stabilize the vacuum.
標準モデルによるなら真空崩壊は原始（ミニ）ブラックホールで再現されるはずなのに、なぜか起きなかったということで現代のエーテルのような議論に
なってきている
The real point, Moss says, is that theorists can no longer shrug off the problem by assuming that the collapse of
the vacuum would take a hugely long time. By showing that—according to the standard model—the collapse
should happen quickly, the paper suggests that some new physics must kick in to stabilize the vacuum.
標準モデルによるなら真空崩壊は原始（ミニ）ブラックホールで再現されるはずなのに、なぜか起きなかったということで現代のエーテルのような議論に
なってきている
101ニュースソース検討中＠自治議論スレ
2018/08/22(水) 13:01:37.86ID:X6dN1jym 標準理論裏付ける新証拠、「超対称性」に新たな痛手 LHC
http://www.afpbb.com/articles/-/3055710
だがLHCでは、超対称性のきょうだいが存在する証拠はこれまで何も見つかっていない。
その一方で、標準理論で存在が予測された素粒子はすべて観測されている。その中には、
万物に質量を与えるとされる「ヒッグス粒子（Higgs boson）」も含まれる。
超対称性理論では、ヒッグス粒子が少なくとも5種類あると予測されているが、これま
でのところ、標準理論のヒッグス粒子とみられる1種類しか見つかっていない。
しかし、ウィルキンソン氏は、超対称性を見限るのは「時期尚早」と話す。「超対称性
を打ち倒すのは非常に難しい。頭がたくさんある怪物だからだ」と同氏は指摘している。
それでも、今後数年以内に何も見つからなければ、超対称性は今よりはるかに困難な
状況に置かれることになると思われ、熱狂的信者の数も減るとみられている。
http://www.afpbb.com/articles/-/3055710
だがLHCでは、超対称性のきょうだいが存在する証拠はこれまで何も見つかっていない。
その一方で、標準理論で存在が予測された素粒子はすべて観測されている。その中には、
万物に質量を与えるとされる「ヒッグス粒子（Higgs boson）」も含まれる。
超対称性理論では、ヒッグス粒子が少なくとも5種類あると予測されているが、これま
でのところ、標準理論のヒッグス粒子とみられる1種類しか見つかっていない。
しかし、ウィルキンソン氏は、超対称性を見限るのは「時期尚早」と話す。「超対称性
を打ち倒すのは非常に難しい。頭がたくさんある怪物だからだ」と同氏は指摘している。
それでも、今後数年以内に何も見つからなければ、超対称性は今よりはるかに困難な
状況に置かれることになると思われ、熱狂的信者の数も減るとみられている。
102ニュースソース検討中＠自治議論スレ
2018/08/22(水) 13:02:11.72ID:X6dN1jym 足りない情報を数式でいじるより、観測方法を変えたら解決してしまった問題（消えたバリオン問題）もある
A Search for Warm/Hot Gas Filaments Between Pairs of SDSS Luminous Red Galaxies
https://arxiv.org/abs/1709.05024
この問題はスニヤエフ・ゼルドビッチ効果を応用することで2017年に解決した
https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/スニヤエフ・ゼルドビッチ効果
これは、今後予定されているサーベイ (SPT, ACT, プランク)で得られるであろうダークエネルギーの力学を理解するうえで参考になるであろう。
A Search for Warm/Hot Gas Filaments Between Pairs of SDSS Luminous Red Galaxies
https://arxiv.org/abs/1709.05024
この問題はスニヤエフ・ゼルドビッチ効果を応用することで2017年に解決した
https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/スニヤエフ・ゼルドビッチ効果
これは、今後予定されているサーベイ (SPT, ACT, プランク)で得られるであろうダークエネルギーの力学を理解するうえで参考になるであろう。
103ニュースソース検討中＠自治議論スレ
2018/08/22(水) 13:02:33.81ID:X6dN1jym https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant_problem
Some supersymmetric theories require a cosmological constant that is exactly zero, which further complicates things.
This is the cosmological constant problem, the worst problem of fine-tuning in physics: there is no known natural way
to derive the tiny cosmological constant used in cosmology from particle physics.
Some supersymmetric theories require a cosmological constant that is exactly zero, which further complicates things.
This is the cosmological constant problem, the worst problem of fine-tuning in physics: there is no known natural way
to derive the tiny cosmological constant used in cosmology from particle physics.
104ニュースソース検討中＠自治議論スレ
2018/08/22(水) 13:04:06.22ID:X6dN1jym 宇宙定数問題では、観測されているダークエネルギーは予想されている量を圧倒的に下回る
とりあえず問題の辻褄を合わせるために一時的に作られたのがマルチバース理論なわけだが
何しろ観測できないエーテルにすべて説明を投げているのだから当然だ
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant_problem
In cosmology, the cosmological constant problem or vacuum catastrophe is the disagreement between the
observed values of vacuum energy density (the small value of the cosmological constant) and theoretical
large value of zero-point energy suggested by quantum field theory.
Depending on the Planck energy cutoff and other factors, the discrepancy is as high as 120 orders of magnitude,
[1] a state of affairs described by physicists as "the largest discrepancy between theory and experiment in all of
science"[1] and "the worst theoretical prediction in the history of physics."[2]
とりあえず問題の辻褄を合わせるために一時的に作られたのがマルチバース理論なわけだが
何しろ観測できないエーテルにすべて説明を投げているのだから当然だ
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant_problem
In cosmology, the cosmological constant problem or vacuum catastrophe is the disagreement between the
observed values of vacuum energy density (the small value of the cosmological constant) and theoretical
large value of zero-point energy suggested by quantum field theory.
Depending on the Planck energy cutoff and other factors, the discrepancy is as high as 120 orders of magnitude,
[1] a state of affairs described by physicists as "the largest discrepancy between theory and experiment in all of
science"[1] and "the worst theoretical prediction in the history of physics."[2]
105ニュースソース検討中＠自治議論スレ
2018/08/22(水) 13:05:35.51ID:X6dN1jym プランクがインフレーション問題において喜劇（モデルのチューニングにつぐチューニング）をまき起こしていることを考えると
標準モデルが数ある仮説でもかなりマシだと言える
Inflationary paradigm in trouble after Planck2013
https://arxiv.org/abs/1304.2785
Recent results from the Planck satellite combined with earlier observations from WMAP, ACT, SPT and other
experiments eliminate a wide spectrum of more complex inflationary models and favor models with a single
scalar field, as reported by the Planck Collaboration. More important, though, is that all the simplest inflaton
models are disfavored statistically relative to those with plateau-like potentials. We discuss how a restriction to
plateau-like models has three independent serious drawbacks: it exacerbates both the initial conditions problem
and the multiverse-unpredictability problem and it creates a new difficulty that we call the inflationary
"unlikeliness problem." Finally, we comment on problems reconciling inflation with a standard model Higgs,
as suggested by recent LHC results. In sum, we find that recent experimental data disfavors all the best-motivated
inflationary scenarios and introduces new, serious difficulties that cut to the core of the inflationary paradigm.
Forthcoming searches for B-modes, non-Gaussianity and new particles should be decisive.
Inflationary schism
AnnaIjjasaPaul J.SteinhardtbcAbrahamLoebd
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269314004985?via%3Dihub
標準モデルが数ある仮説でもかなりマシだと言える
Inflationary paradigm in trouble after Planck2013
https://arxiv.org/abs/1304.2785
Recent results from the Planck satellite combined with earlier observations from WMAP, ACT, SPT and other
experiments eliminate a wide spectrum of more complex inflationary models and favor models with a single
scalar field, as reported by the Planck Collaboration. More important, though, is that all the simplest inflaton
models are disfavored statistically relative to those with plateau-like potentials. We discuss how a restriction to
plateau-like models has three independent serious drawbacks: it exacerbates both the initial conditions problem
and the multiverse-unpredictability problem and it creates a new difficulty that we call the inflationary
"unlikeliness problem." Finally, we comment on problems reconciling inflation with a standard model Higgs,
as suggested by recent LHC results. In sum, we find that recent experimental data disfavors all the best-motivated
inflationary scenarios and introduces new, serious difficulties that cut to the core of the inflationary paradigm.
Forthcoming searches for B-modes, non-Gaussianity and new particles should be decisive.
Inflationary schism
AnnaIjjasaPaul J.SteinhardtbcAbrahamLoebd
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269314004985?via%3Dihub
■ このスレッドは過去ログ倉庫に格納されています
ニュース
- 中国・文化観光省も訪日自粛呼びかけ 外務省に続き首相答弁に対抗か [ぐれ★]
- 「クマはなるべく山に返す努力を」「クマと戦争は間違っている」動物保護活動家の主張 棲み分けと学習放獣でクマ被害なくなるのか？★4 [ぐれ★]
- 【サッカー】W杯欧州予選 イタリアがノルウェーに 1-4で敗退 プレーオフへ ハンガリーはアイルランドに負け予選落ち [阿弥陀ヶ峰★]
- 習政権、高市首相への態度硬化 台湾有事発言で連日非難 中国 ★7 [ぐれ★]
- 高市政権、円安を止めることが最大の物価高対策だが、利上げをけん制して円安になり物価高対策に逆行 (TBS) ★4 [お断り★]
- 【川崎】首都高速湾岸線で高級外車フェラーリが炎上 60代の男性 運転操作誤ったか [ぐれ★]
- 高市早苗の存立危機発言により観光業だけで日本のGDPが0.36%（2兆2000億円）吹き飛ぶ見込み [624898991]
- 【速報】外務省局長「ちょっと中国行ってくるわ。発言を撤回するつもりはないと伝えてくる😡」 [583597859]
- 普通の日本人「徴兵なんてされない。憲法が守ってくれる」「戦争に行くのは自衛隊員だけ」 [237216734]
- 【高市早苗】7月～9月のGDP 年率ー1.8％マイナス成長は6四半期ぶり [115996789]
- 【高市早苗】中国関係筋『撤回が無ければレアアース禁輸などの経済制裁⇒軍事』★3 [115996789]
- 【悲報】ネトウヨ、性癖をえっちな意味と勘違い [788736982]