Quantum cosmologists argue we're shortening the life of the universe

[bascule]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/11/21/scicosmos121.xml&CMP=ILC-mostviewedbox

 

I don't know what to make of this... anyone with relevant knowledge care to opine?

[iNow]

Hopefully, someone with "relevant knowledge" will still decide to read this and chime in (since I'm definitely not him), but my take is that observation does not require people, hence the argument fails. In what I've read, and the different descriptions I've encountered, my own perspective is that interaction itself is the same as observation, hence even particle/particle interaction is, in essense, an observation. IMO, this would mean that the age does not change simply because humans have recently observed DM.

 

 

Theres' my only even prime number of cents.

[Reaper]

I don't know about this, this report seems to smack of some good examples of bad scientific reporting to me, that or extreme misuse of the anthropic principle. I have not read anywhere of the idea that we might be actually shortening it's lifespan by us observing it.

 

For one, quantum mechanics cannot be simply "extended" to the entire universe, it can only deal with the sub-atomic realm.

 

And when they speak of collapsing wave-functions, what they really mean is that until we observe it, we cannot know the state of the particle (Schrodinger's cat anyone?). The act of observation collapses the wave function. But this only applies to small scale (read: on the order of < 10^-15 m). Macro-size objects tend to have a much smaller wave-functions (and hence most nearly one possible state).

[foodchain]

I think these people might just be suffering from cabin fever really. The universe existed before human life or life on the planet did. I would have to say also, though I cant be sure, that no life existed in the big bang. I would also have to state that the use of the observer fallacy is becoming far to rampant these days. I would also have to say the entire premise of the antrophic principal is a load of manure that makes no sense when actually studied. Yes the universe was fined tuned to make natural selection, evolution and extinction a reality. The sun is not going to go nova and destroy the life on this planet which did not have to make it or even evolve into something like humans...

 

That whole idea is getting closer and closer to being organized religion then anything else really.

[JaKiri]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/11/21/scicosmos121.xml&CMP=ILC-mostviewedbox

 

I don't know what to make of this... anyone with relevant knowledge care to opine?

 

It's rubbish.

[Severian]

It's rubbish.

 

Agreed.

[Phi for All]

It's rubbish.

I didn't get to say it yesterday amidst the incredulity generated by that atom-challenged anti-Semite Chuck(full of crap)West, but it sure is nice to have you back, JaKiri.

[JaKiri]

I didn't get to say it yesterday amidst the incredulity generated by that atom-challenged anti-Semite Chuck(full of crap)West, but it sure is nice to have you back, JaKiri.

 

Where did that go, anyway? It was entertaining.

[ydoaPs]

Where did that go, anyway? It was entertaining.

 

I was thinking the same thing. Sans the antisemitism, it was hilarious.

[insane_alien]

i'm confused, what is different about the photons getting absorbed by the ground and the photons getting absorbed by our eyes thats going to cause the universe to go kaput sooner?

[Phi for All]

Where did that go, anyway? It was entertaining.

We had to yoink it when his real agenda became apparent. He's banned now so we'll most likely edit the racist bits and repost in in Pseudoscience.

 

He will be the solid gold wok in our crackpot collection.

[ydoaPs]

We had to yoink it when his real agenda became apparent. He's banned now so we'll most likely edit the racist bits and repost in in Pseudoscience.

 

He will be the solid gold wok in our crackpot collection.

What was his real agenda? Holocaust?

[Phi for All]

What was his real agenda? Holocaust?

He did try to link the holocaust, the nuclear bombings and our use of nuclear power as one big conspiracy. Those Jews sure are clever.

[ydoaPs]

He did try to link the holocaust, the nuclear bombings and our use of nuclear power as one big conspiracy. Those Jews sure are clever.

Too bad he's banned. I rather hoped for an explanation of what happened at SL-1.

 

i'm confused, what is different about the photons getting absorbed by the ground and the photons getting absorbed by our eyes thats going to cause the universe to go kaput sooner?

 

My guess is nothing.

[JaKiri]

i'm confused, what is different about the photons getting absorbed by the ground and the photons getting absorbed by our eyes thats going to cause the universe to go kaput sooner?

 

[Martin]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/11/21/scicosmos121.xml&CMP=ILC-mostviewedbox

 

I don't know what to make of this... anyone with relevant knowledge care to opine?

 

There was a mix-up. Larry Krauss, the lead author, has changed the last two sentences of the conclusions section at the end of the Krauss-Dent paper, and changed the summary at the beginning slightly.

 

He says it is now impossible for anybody to interpret the paper as suggesting CAUSALITY----he doesnt want to suggest that our observations (e.g. of supernovae leading to estimates of dark energy) CAUSED anything.

 

he has said "mea culpa" and said he regrets not being clear about this originally and carelessly allowing misinterpretation. So he accepts some responsibility. And he has posted comment on various blogs etc pointing out that the paper has been revised.

 

That said, I don't know if I have any personal opinion. I have a high regard for Larry Krauss. It was a goof-up and probably did no lasting harm. there is no need to worry about how to divide the blame between New Sci reporter and Krauss and whoever other.

 

If anyone wants to look further, Krauss has posted comments on Woit's blog

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=621

but I'm inclined to just let it drop.

 

The original Krauss-Dent paper, which was primarily about something different, and was revised yesterday 24 Nov, is here

http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.1821

 

===================

 

not that it matters, Bascule, but neither Krauss nor Dent is what I would call a quantum cosmologist.

Neither ever wrote a Loop Quantum Cosmology paper. Krauss does classical cosmology, some string-inspired stuff, some studies of various inflation scenarios. Of course he uses quantum mechanics, as physicists do. But I've never seen him use a quantum model of the cosmos (as in LQC). At most a classical model with some quantum bells and whistles, like an inflaton field, added on as accessories. Nothing wrong with it. He just doesnt act like a quantum cosmologist.

[ydoaPs]

Didn't Krauss write The Physics of Star Trek?

[Martin]

He sure did! Did you read it? I'd be curious to know what anyone thinks of him as a pop writer.

I've only read technical papers by him. And seen him on video debate Brian Greene at the Smithsonian in Washington DC.

[JaKiri]

He did.

 

There was a mix-up. Larry Krauss, the lead author, has changed the last two sentences of the conclusions section at the end of the Krauss-Dent paper, and changed the summary at the beginning slightly.

 

Thanks for the update, don't know if I'd have come across that otherwise.

[ydoaPs]

He sure did! Did you read it? I'd be curious to know what anyone thinks of him as a pop writer.

I've only read technical papers by him. And seen him on video debate Brian Greene at the Smithsonian in Washington DC.

 

I read it ages ago. I thought he was just a pop-writer. I didn't know he wrote technical papers.

[JaKiri]

He sure did! Did you read it? I'd be curious to know what anyone thinks of him as a pop writer.

I've only read technical papers by him. And seen him on video debate Brian Greene at the Smithsonian in Washington DC.

 

I was 14 when I read it, so probably not best placed to critique, but I found it entertaining enough. Although his measurement of the number of hard drives required to hold all the information about the human body, ignoring the uncertainty principle, might be out by quite a few orders of magnitude by now, and probably a few more in a few years.