HOW does the universe end? According to astrophysicist Katie Mack speaking to Laura Whitmore on 5 Live on Tuesday afternoon there are five potential possibilities: vacuum decay (no Hoovers involved), heat death, the big rip (what it says on the tin), the big crunch and, rather more decorous sounding but no less deadly, the bounce.
All of them involve the destruction of everything, with only the bounce offering any hope for a sequel. Not that any of us will be around to see the climax, of course. It’s a while away yet. I think Mack said it was likely to be “10 to the power of 100 years” in the future. I’m a bit vague on the maths, but that’s a while away yet.
Such are the incidental pleasures of radio. It’s just on in the background and then suddenly you find yourself intrigued by something you had never thought of before. Such as what it might like to be a student scientist heckled by Stephen Hawking as Mack once was. Or thought she was. In fact, it was his voice box malfunctioning.
On Monday night I was in the car listening to On the Menu on Radio 4 where Adam Hart was talking about mankind and the animals that, from time to time, eat humans. Lions and tigers and wolves, oh my. It was a fascinating if, at times, horrifying programme – one tiger watched his potential dinner for a week, taking note of behaviour patterns. Turns out going for a toilet break outside at four in the morning every night is not recommended in some parts of the world.
Trophy hunting and human destruction of habitats both got a mention in a programme that was attuned to the social and environmental issues involved. And yet it was hard not to want to hear the next gruesome detail.
We’ve always been grub, it seems. The earliest humans were on the menu of, among other things, sabre tooth cats and hyenas larger than lions. Your best chance of escape back then? Climb a tree. So that’s where the idea of tree houses came from.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel