George: Reviving an old thread here.
> It seems the Big Crunch is back on the agenda
> 
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131212113034.htm
> 
> Or a new form of Collapse of the Universe 
> due to a glitch in the Higgs Field.
> 
> But apparently the discovery of one new particle 
> may contradict the whole thesis!-Thanks George for the reference. I've not been following closely for two days with other issues taking my time. I never realized retirement could be so time consuming. -Science news writers always like to hype the research to mean more than it does:-"collapse of the universe will happen if a bubble forms in the universe where the Higgs particle-associated Higgs-field will reach a different value than the rest of the universe. If this new value means lower energy, and if the bubble is large enough, the bubble will expand at the speed of light in all directions. All elementary particles inside the bubble will reach a mass that is much heavier than if they were outside the bubble, and thus they will pull each other into supermassive centers. (Credit: Image courtesy of University of Southern Denmark" -The double "ifs" put the entire conjecture into never-never land. Mark Strassler, whose blog I follow, points out that it is important to imagine strange new universes because it opens up areas and ideas for theoretical particle physicists to explore and occasionally stumble into a really important insight. This study is that sort of 'what if' approach, and is taken too seriously by the science writer. The current Higgs, according to Strassler, should be stronger to fit current theories, and in fact there may be as many as 5 Higgs, but the studies need to be at much higher energies than have been available. The LHC will go to higher levels in two years. But the geometry of space-time still favors flatness and continuing expansion. The increased speed of that expansion is certainly not fully understood, requiring the assumption of 'dark energy". I don't buy an outlook for 'crunch' Although Steinhardt keeps pushing for it.


> > IF CONFIRMED is my editorializing on the article. The Big Crunch has been out of favor for years. The best recent guess has been space is flat and Heat Death is the proper end to expect, 100 billion years from now.These are scientific 'consensus'thoughts, now that the current age of peer review allows consensus control in science, like the Global Warming consensus. Never mind acceptable proof.
> 
> I find it unlikely that its consensus just yet; I only say this because it was only this time last year where I remember SciAm reporting on the "infinite, empty, and cold" death of the universe. I'll stay on my fence, as I am wont to do, heh-The SciAM infinite, empty, and cold death is the same as the phrase 'heat death', used in past discussions elsewhere. Heat is dead, or gone. Kind of a silly twist on words and meanings.

Emphasis Added
> > 
> > > The universe will definitely end in 'heat death' expanding under the influence of Dark Energy, reported by the BBC: 
> > > 
> > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11030889
> > > 
> > > This means, if confirmed, that the universe is flat. Settles lots of arguments.
> > 
> > How do these words coexist? > 
> > It is also important to note here (for dhw) that "dark matter" and "dark energy" are terms used simply to denote matter and energy that does not emit light... so from what I've gathered, it isn't confirmed "new" or different from other kinds of matter.
> 
> The BBC was quite DEFINITE in its report of a single study using gravitational lensing.
> -Shows the BBC isn't aware of epistemic issues when reporting scientific claims. -> IF CONFIRMED is my editorializing on the article. The Big Crunch has been out of favor for years. The best recent guess has been space is flat and Heat Death is the proper end to expect, 100 billion years from now.These are scientific 'consensus'thoughts, now that the current age of peer review allows consensus control in science, like the Global Warming consensus. Never mind acceptable proof.-I find it unlikely that its consensus just yet; I only say this because it was only this time last year where I remember SciAm reporting on the "infinite, empty, and cold" death of the universe. I'll stay on my fence, as I am wont to do, heh

Emphasis Added
> 
> > The universe will definitely end in 'heat death' expanding under the influence of Dark Energy, reported by the BBC: 
> > 
> > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11030889
> > 
> > This means, if confirmed, that the universe is flat. Settles lots of arguments.
> 
> How do these words coexist? > 
> It is also important to note here (for dhw) that "dark matter" and "dark energy" are terms used simply to denote matter and energy that does not emit light... so from what I've gathered, it isn't confirmed "new" or different from other kinds of matter.-The BBC was quite DEFINITE in its report of a single study using gravitational lensing.-IF CONFIRMED is my editorializing on the article. The Big Crunch has been out of favor for years. The best recent guess has been space is flat and Heat Death is the proper end to expect, 100 billion years from now.These are scientific 'consensus'thoughts, now that the current age of peer review allows consensus control in science, like the Global Warming consensus. Never mind acceptable proof.