The End of the World As We Know It?

I would wager that a majority of you are like us (here at FQTQ)… we typically find the comments section exponentially more entertaining than the actual content of most articles (and also more depressing and insane). This fact is especially prevalent when dealing with “doomsdayers.” AKA: The people that seriously believed just last year, that a mythical, invisible planet was making its way to the inner solar system, where it would eventually collide with Earth, killing every0ne (as the Mayans systematically rise from the dead to say, “we told you so”) Regardless of the battiness, many are still enjoyable, which got us to thinking about some of the more bizarre apocalyptic scenarios we’ve heard. Here is a list of a few of our favorites along with a description of why they are unlikely, if not downright impossible, to happen.

3. Strangelets:

When CERN’s “Large Hadron Collider” [LHC] was first proposed, many bloggers wanted to capitalize on the ignorance of the masses, instilling several ridiculous notions among their readership, mostly purporting that the LHC could destroy the world (the worst case of fear mongering I’ve seen since the Y2K scare). This came to a head after a lawsuit was filed against CERN, trying to put off the completion of the project until the safety was reassessed to the satisfaction of the defendants. People needed to believe that particle accelerator collisions could not create planet-engulfing black holes or spontaneously recreate the big bang. One of the strangest fringe claims centered around strangelets: a hypothetical, unstable, exotic form of matter that is comprised of an equal amount of up, down, and strange quarks (quarks are a constituent part of elementary particles, which come in various flavors).

Death by Strangelets:

264120061_8bda0dff14_m“Strange” matter is named as such for a reason… it is really freaking strange. At least, what we know about it is strange. It’s believed that quarks in various flavors can collect together and remain stable instead of decaying into normal matter. So, assuming a batch of strange matter made its way to Earth (or was created at the Large Hadron Collider), it’s possible that, instead of decaying, it could overwhelm normal matter and transform it into strange matter (an energetically favorable state). Before too long, the entire planet (and everyone on it) would be converted into strangelets (the Pauli exclusion principle in action). Needless to say, that would not be a good thing.

Why It’ll Never Happen:

First, strange matter has never been observed directly, thus relegating it to the realm of theoretical physics. However, our models suggest that “strange” matter, if it exists, is quiet heavy and prone to decaying very quickly, reverting it back into traditional up and down quarks. Furthermore, If the LHC could create strangelets whilst slamming atom nuclei together at almost light speed (knocking the quarks from their atoms), it’s almost certain that the temperatures would prohibit strange matter from bonding with additional flavors of quarks — something that is needed to transform the normal matter into strange matter, even with its electromagnetic upgrade (from the surge of mass, thus increased gravity). Even if it did manage to do that, only the negatively charged strangelets are remotely capable of destroying the planet. Did you notice all of the “ifs” and “even ifs” in that paragraph? I hope so.

2. Grey Goo:

Image SourceImage Source
Among the pinnacles of technological evolution is nanotechnology, the production of incredibly small, sometimes self-replicating objects that can be made up of biological materials (currently, more than 100 products available in the UK contain nanoparticles. Some are used in things like antibacterials, agricultural chemicals. and baby food). These are made by exploiting the unique properties of matter, where chemical reactions occur on a microscale. The nanontechnology in question would seriously be tiny beyond measure — hypothetically becoming smaller than a single atom or molecule.

Some believe, that in the future, it will be possible to use tiny nanotechnology (sometimes called von Neumann machines) to exploit the resources of other planets. Using them to self replicate could cause them to begin replicating at such an extreme rate that they could literally consume everything, even biological material — turning the world (and everyone/everything on it) into literal gray goo (called “ecophagy”). Perhaps after that, it would continue on to consume a large fraction of our galaxy, before eating its way out into interstellar space.

Death by Grey Goo:

One such scenario was devised by Eric Drexler, from his book “Engines of Creation.” In it, he said: “…the first replicator assembles a copy in one thousand seconds, the two replicators then build two more in the next thousand seconds, the four build another four . . in less than two days, they would outweigh the Earth; in another four hours, they would exceed the mass of the Sun and all the planets combined…”

The punch line? We’d all be screwed.

Why It’ll Never Happen:

Drexler went on to say that any such nanoparticle replicator would be consigned by three rules for the grey goo hypothesis to be even slightly viable (and I use the term very loosely).

184410_469345913151823_445264781_n
First: They would have to be self-replicating in order to cause widespread ruin. This is essentially be the basic definition of grey goo-bots. Second: The grey goo-bots would have to be capable of surviving whatever environment they encounter to keep replicating. On Earth, that would also entail whatever materials we create in the future. Since many aren’t conceived of yet, it’s difficult to speculate on that aspect of the grey goo hypothesis. Third: The grey goo bots would need a source of energy to drive the replication process, which could include chemical reactions like oxidation.

Drexler himself even eventually admitted that his proposition was very unlikely, but he didn’t go so far as saying that it’s impossible. The laws of physics allow some VERY strange things to remain within the scope of possibilities, which brings us to….

1. Boltzmann Brains:

We all know that space is pretty big.. maybe even infinite. If so, that would allow for some mind-blowing predicaments. Somewhere within the scope of the universe, there may be a huge army of space brains, which are hypothetically self-aware, conscious entities that are not held down by some external biological presence (like skin, bones, teeth, hair and blood — in our case). These brains, which are usually referred to as Boltzmann brains, if they exist, would form spontaneously on their own under the right circumstances (give an infinite amount of time in an infinite universe, the idea states that it would eventually happen).

indexConsciousness alone is a tough thing to understand. For us, we have billions of neurons which build a system that allows us to create memories, retain information, and communicate with other parts of the body to keep us alive. This makes it all the more difficult to understand how conscience entities pop into existence. But the laws of physics don’t forbid them from occurring naturally (It follows the same logic as the idea that an infinite number of monkeys working on an infinite number of typewriters will replicate the complete works of Shakespeare, if you leave them to their own devices long enough. It’s quantum physics at its most wacky point.)

Death by Space Brains:

This one isn’t nearly as much about the physical capabilities of space brains as it is about how much their existence could uproot the basis of our understanding of the laws of physics. Though it’s conceivable that if enough of these entities came into existence, they could very well outnumber human beings by a large margin. If so, it seems unlikely that a legion of space brains would have a vendetta against the inhabitants of planet Earth. Then again.. some of us are pretty annoying. I mean, have you seen Jersey Shore?

Why It’ll Never Occur:

It’s more likely that not enough time has progressed to allow for the formation of an exponential number of these disembodied brains to exist. They seem more prone to occur under conditions that would be more favorable when the universe is a featureless, inky void…a time after the universe has expanded far beyond its current reach, making the future indistinguishable from the past (ultimately warping the human perception of the arrow of time — or our “norm.”)

Image SourceImage Source
Furthermore, string theory dictates that many universes exist beyond ours. Each with properties of eternal inflation, which give way to new universes forming within other universes like a bubble. This is what we call the ‘multiverse’ (and it’s a fascinating topic, even if it’s unverifiable). It also means that many other universes, which are likely home to a slew of different laws that govern them, could have a plethora of conscious creatures that share a similar views with us concerning the arrow of time (others could experience time much differently. Going from a system of high entropy to a closed system of low entropy [like ours]).

Of course string theory is not universally accepted by physicists as the best model to explain the properties of the universe, but if it’s truly rooted in science, it would bode well for us vs the space brains — as it is possible with string theory to predict the properties of any “baby universes” that pop into existence from another in a larger multiverse. This would allow us to determine if the universe will last long enough to give the proper time needed for the brains to assemble.