Cosmological used in a sentence

Cosmological in a sentence as an adjective

The mathematics that describe all those things imply certain things about earlier cosmological history.

>"biggest blunder" Einstein's self professed "biggest blunder" was the cosmological constant. That term has never referred to the assumption of lorentz invariance.

It's the prevailing cosmological theory of the universe' beginnings. Like all scientific theories, it's subject to replacement as new evidence appears and as new theories are crafted, but it's a good match at the moment.

Giving up space and time as fundamental constituents of nature and figuring out how the Big Bang and cosmological evolution of the universe arose out of pure geometry." Ah yes, well that solves the mystery, doesn't it.

Our research group was determined to run the largest hydrodynamic cosmological simulation ever done, using a new code. Over a year ago the code was "basically ready" and had been used on "small" runs of ~hundreds of k CPU hours.

That [background] radiation becomes essential in the cosmological cycle involving the endless birth and death of galaxies via black holes. While the theory seems to be collecting dust, I've not found anything to fully discredit it.

With the deepest reverence to John McCarthy, I regret to say that Lisp is our cosmological constant. It creates a static universe that is otherwise expanding; it reduces the problem to a solvable one and then declares victory.

The next phrase mentions that this theory is testable \u00AD>Along the way, their model appears to address long-standing cosmological puzzles, and – crucially – produce testable predictions. I'm very curious to know how.

Although it can be "explained" by a cosmological constant, that just punts the question to what the cosmological constant physically is. As for dark matter, it is the simplest, most elegant way to explain the variety of observations that point to its existence.

Our entire perspective on existence is based on where we popped up on the cosmological timeline. If we'd come along earlier, we may not have been able to perceive the expansion of the universe, and the apparent disconnect between the hard limit of the speed of light, and the size of the universe.

Creationism can be thought of as a cosmological hypothesis. It happens to be a hypothesis that is basically impossible to test, so scientists instead spend their time evaluating other hypothesis.

Model the expansion of the universe assuming a foam like structure and a non-zero cosmological constant at different values. Then model the path of light rays traveling large distances over long periods of time. The patterns of hydrogen absorption lines should be pretty distinctive and could be used to test various cosmological possibilities.

Given solutions to the most fundamental bug of biology, we'd have a few million or billion years to solve the cosmological limitations on lifespan, and that's ignoring the possibility of improvements to the speed of thought or to the subjective experience of time. So, yes, the ultimate battle is with entropy, but we have a long way to go before that's the actual limiting factor.

Einstein introduced the cosmological constant lambda in an attempt to produce a steady state model of the universe -- in his view the most elegant solution to the problem of our existence was a universe infinite in age. Later on when the Big Bang was firmly established it came to be seen as an unnecessary mistake. In a twist of fate, when we discovered the accelerating expansion of the universe in the 90s -- also known as dark energy -- Einstein's cosmological constant was the perfect place to 'absorb' it.

Dark matter involves hypothesizing something that is being hypothesized solely to explain certain cosmological problems. If we didn't have those cosmological problems that need explaining, no one would be suggesting dark matter. The possibility of gravity being repulsive between matter and antimatter was hypothesizes long before we ran into those cosmological problems, and has been subject of sporadic ongoing debate at least as far back as the early to mid 20th century.

Even if they "all" happily charge into simulated bliss, a residual caretaking system should be visible as it performs the necessary cosmic-scale engineering to ensure that the simulated ones don't get wiped out by a cosmological crisis, such as a supernova. Further, any such society will still end up wanting more and more energy, so we ought to be seeing Dyson shells or something pop up, in the continuing absence of any apparently way of converting mass directly into energy.

\nIn a larger sense, the theory suggests that the entire universe can be seen as a two-dimensional information structure "painted" on the cosmological horizon, such that the three dimensions we observe are only an effective description at macroscopic scales and at low energies." So the analogy is that the field inside the volume can be completely described by some function over the bounding surface of the volume, similar to how the light field captured by a hologram is projected and recorded on a flat glass or film plane.

As I mentioned on a post recently talking about research projects, my final year project in 1995, without going into too much detail, was modeling the expansion of the universe assuming a non-zero cosmological constant and tracing the paths of light through such an expanding/contracting/whatever universe, depending on assumed values, and studying the likely distribution of hydrogen absorption lines as it passed through a posited foam-like structure of walls and filaments of matter. This was a relatively off the wall topic at the time, but for anyone studying Physics today you'll know a lot of these things now represent the state of thinking in many ways.