The Universal Depression Is Nigh: ‘Cosmic GDP’ Crashes 97% As Star Formation Slumps

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by Global Macro Monitor

The Collaspe In Cosmic GDP


Peak oil.  Peak food production.  Now (11 billion years ago) peak star production.

The Royal Astronomical Society writes,

Cosmic GDP’ crashes 97% as star formation slumps


While parts of the world experience economic hardship, a team of Portuguese, UK, Japanese, Italian and Dutch astronomers has found an even bigger slump happening on a cosmic scale. In the largest ever study of its kind, the international team of astronomers has established that the rate of formation of new stars in the Universe is now only 1/30th of its peak and that this decline is only set to continue. The team, led by David Sobral of the University of Leiden in the Netherlands, publish their results in the journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society…


Dr Sobral comments: “You might say that the universe has been suffering from a long, serious “crisis”: cosmic GDP output is now only 3% of what it used to be at the peak in star production!”

The decline in the universe’s star production appears structural and secular to us. Could be cyclical depending on your time horizon, however.

The universe must be suffering from not enough demand, too much austerity,  and thus needs the cosmic central bank to engage in some QE.   That is,  Quasar Easing.

Krugman, weigh in!

Hat tip Guardian Science via Twitter.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Flakmeister's picture

Did you think that hydrogen gas was abiotically formed in the center of the universe?

cougar_w's picture

Dude. What are you saying? Of course it was. Big Bang much?

Well except that the universe lacks an actual center. Maybe that was your point.

Oh and who here thinks cosmologist were having a little joke when they called it the "big bang". I mean guys, ever hear of subtle? Just because you cannot get a date doesn't mean you can porn up the rest of us.

Flakmeister's picture

Not on a continual basis though...

That's the whole idea, looks like we passed peak fusion...

TruthInSunshine's picture

I am really ignorant on matters of the galactic interworkings of cosmic GDP.

Does this mean Paul "When Mars Attacks"  Krugman will get his stimulus boosting, hostile extraterrestrial, many windows-will-be-broken-and-phasered invasion soon?

malikai's picture

I take it to mean that the Universe is inherently Austrian.

moonstears's picture

Someone HAD to!+1(stars, gold is from the stars, beautiful!)

true brain's picture

Big Bang theory is the ultimate Keynesian theory. something for nothing.

it's only a theory , which will be disproved soon enough. Only Zombie would accept something like that blindly. I like the multiverse theory more.

The Alarmist's picture

Damn Chinamen aren't working hard enough!  Gotta outsource this star-formation thing to Vietnam or Sri Lanka I guess.

kaiserhoff's picture

Sanity in astronomy peaked about 50 years ago when Halton Arp put out his Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies.

Know why "dark matter" is theoretically there?  Because without it, galaxies don't rotate the way physics (Einstein) thinks they should.

Try Seeing Red, by Arp for a great summary of why astronomy is off its meds.

john39's picture

how about this as odd... leading up to 2012, there has been a rash of astonomers dying in unexplained accidents:

full disclosure, i don't buy the niburu story, but, something is going on around the solar system.

CPL's picture

If you want to watch whatever it is.


Arm chair astro corp is borrowing telescopes to scan the sky...they are farting around with audio right now.

CPL's picture

Well, if you have a coordinate in space you want to check out, get in chat early and post it up in an hour.  The telescope takes a bit of time to move around and costs a fortune to operate.  


It's pretty cool though, instant access to million dollar toys to poke around the sky.  Beats the shit out of a bushnel.

The Alarmist's picture

"Know why "dark matter" is theoretically there?  Because without it, galaxies don't rotate the way physics (Einstein) thinks they should."

Gee, Einstein, I thought it was some sort of Diversity initiative that all the universities are hot for these days.

Dark matter is what leads the universe to collapse back on itself so that it can start the process all over again rather than simply continuing to spread out and fizzle for the end of all time.

Flakmeister's picture


No collapse in the cards, DM or not...

Orly's picture

Looks like you have an inexplicable case of AUCC (Anthropogenic Universal Climate Change...) on your hands, there, flak.  Prolly should get busy trying to explain this one.

It's gonna take a while...

Flakmeister's picture

It is easy for an educated person to play a moron, alas the converse is not so facile....

Matt's picture

John39: that site would seem more reputable if they could decide whether the scientist in question is named Alexia Demetria or Alexei Dmitriev.

Matt's picture

It seems the average age, at least from the ones where an age was given, is probably around 75. Many of the people were listed between 60 and 90 years of age. One of the guys in his 30s died because he tried to walk out of a rotating observatory while it was rotating and got squished.

A bunch of ~85 year old men dying over a decade is hardly bizarre. It would be better if it was presentated in a more statistical, and less dramatic way.

Flakmeister's picture

First off, Newtonian mechanics is more than adequate to study galactic rotation.

I also suggest you look at up critical density and the Tully-Fischer relationship...

kaiserhoff's picture

As usual, you have your head up your ass.

Don't your ever get around to your fucking home work?

Flakmeister's picture

Hee, hee, hee...

So where did you learn your astrophysics? Bazooka Joe Bubble Gum comics?

Disenchanted's picture





Just out of curiosity Flak, what's your opinion of Immanuel Velikovsky and his work?

Flakmeister's picture

Basically an entertaining crank, if anything he wrote was scientifically relevant it was by accident...

Flakmeister's picture

Just when you thought we have seen everything, ZH now has Big-Bang deniers.... 

orkneylad's picture

Whereas you believe in NASA's 'flat universe' big-bang?  flat-earth thinking dude . . . .

The Alarmist's picture

No Big Bang means no Big Smoke ... this is really getting to be a Big Bummer!

busted by the bailout's picture

If there was a Big Bang and no one is around to see it, would it still make a universe?

Flakmeister's picture

Depends on which version of the Anthropomorphic Principle you ascribe to....

fuu's picture

The universe has had no new protons or electrons since the big bang?

Flakmeister's picture

Is this a serious question?

fuu's picture

Yes, I am not a particle physicist who works at CERN. Unlike some people here I don't claim to know everything.

Flakmeister's picture

I don't either, but I do know more than most....

Matter as we know it was formed when the temperature of the universe cooled down below ~1 GeV ( a few million degress or so), the quark gluon plasma condensed out with the heavier unstable quarks quickly decaying. So there is no net new matter being formed thereafter  (particles come in being as matter anti-matter pairs). Simultaneously Big-Bang Nucleosynthesis occured giving the primordial make up of the elements (~75% H, 25% helium and trace amounts of Li and slight heavier stuff)

One of mysteries is why there is such an imbalance between matter and anti-matter in the observable universe. The known and obseved processes for producing it are not strong enough, CP violation via the CKM matrix...Matter anti-matter annihilation has a signature that would stick out so we can put very stringent limits on it...

As always there are loose ends and data that needs to be explained....

Orly's picture

But what happens to neutrinos when they decide to stop moving faster than light?  Don't they become protons and electrons?





Are you sure?



Matt's picture

I don't think nuetrinos travel faster than light.

kaiserhoff's picture

Red Shift is wrong in at least a few areas because quasars are a lot closer than we thought.

The best current interpretation of quasars is that they are either, creating new matter, or recycling it from elsewhere in the universe.  Great stuff if you have a taste for it, and the math is not a big deal.

Look at The Electric Sky by Donald Scott or Dark Matter by Flandern or anything by Arp.

There is a whole counter-culture of engineers who think plasma is far more important than gravity, and they have the best evidence.


Flakmeister's picture

Yet another example of psuedo-science and bullshit at the Hedge...

So you are telling us that the 2011 Nobel Prize was erroneously awarded?

orkneylad's picture

check out Galaxy NGC7319 . . . it has a Quasar in front of the galaxy. According to its extreme redshift, it should be way behind this opaque galaxy & therefore not visible.

The Big Bang Theory is false – not because I or others claim it to be false – but because it has been scientifically falsified.

kaiserhoff's picture

One thing I love about this literature, is seeing all of these "scientists" putting patches on the patches of their theories, explaining why what everyone is seeing just CAN'T BE THERE.  Are you gonna believe your lying eyes????

orkneylad's picture

Dark Matter. The ‘stuff’ that -according to orthodox cosmological thinking- makes up 90% of the Universe. Of all modern theories this is the one that’s closest to pre-Copernican epicycles, flat Earths and luminiferous aethers.

kaiserhoff's picture

Beyond our galaxy, pretty much everything the orthodox crowd thinks they know is based not just on red shift, but very precise interpretations of red shift as acceleration, leading to estimates of distance.  What could be wrong with that?

I love the walls of galaxies that shouldn't be there.  Very well explained by Scott's Plasma/electrical view, impossible to reconcile with the gravitation/big bang theory.

Flakmeister's picture

Buddy, you are babbling....

Orly's picture

Seriously, flak.  You are totally outclassed (as usual...) only this time it is becoming so painfully obvious.

Perhaps you should just be quiet now?

Flakmeister's picture

Oh, you mean this paper from 2005:

It seems that the "proving" the quaser in actaully in the galaxy foreground may be a problem. It is more likely that the quaser is visible through the spiral arm...

If you start finding more of these, you may be on to something...

prains's picture

dude you may know your bang theory but many know their wankathon theory when they read it,


just a word of quixotic caution

orkneylad's picture

"may be on to something..."     try Galaxy NGC7603 which clearly displays four objects linked by plasma trails, all with radically different redshifts.   There's more, much more.

Flakmeister's picture

So scientists found *one* example of a quaser shining through a galaxy in the foreground.... BFD, an oddity to be sure...

Are you a creationist by some chance? You sure sound like one...