Quote:
Originally Posted by skaltezon
The Krauss/Scherrer collaboration is on a recent theory that dark energy appears to be accelerating the expansion of the universe...
Wikipedia has a good article on Krauss that made me enthusiastic about following his work. But when I found the video of an hour-long lecture he gave to AAI, I realized I'd seen it before in connection with researching Richard Dawkins. I don't like Krauss' combative attitude and his tendency to politicize his science by gratuitously insulting people (which is why I didn't listen to the whole lecture the first time I found it). He also lacks the humility he says everyone else should have. Overall giving me a tension headache. That's not to say that his science isn't good. I'd just rather hear it from someone else. But here's the lecture:
Episode 15 – Dr. Lawrence Krauss | Smart People Podcast
|
Thank you for the information and the link to the Krauss lecture, which I watched several days ago.
I agree with you about his lecture, by the way.
I felt that Krauss explained the science of the universe's expansion very well, such that a layperson like myself could follow most of it. However, he flung out a lot of jokes based on insults that targeted religious people, and there was no need for him to do so.
For example, he said, "Forget Jesus! The stars died so you could be here today," while describing his wonder that the heavier elements in our bodies resulted from fusion during the death of stars (which is indeed a wonderful realization).
If he wished to make the distinction between scientific and religious thinking, he could have done so by describing those differences without the insults. He also could have acknowledged that many religious people still feel there is mystery and wonder in the universe and its origins, just like he feels.
He seemed overly ready to leap to his own conclusions based on the science. For example, even though learning that our universe appears to be "flat" (the angles of a gigantic triangle still add up to 180 degrees) means that our universe could have originated out of nothingness and out of zero energy, this tells us nothing about whether or not religious views of the universe's origins are correct, yet Krauss seems to conclude that it does.
Finally, he erred twice by claiming, as if it were fact, that life *has* emerged many times in the universe. For example, he said, "Rare things happen all the time, including life." (I was taking notes.) I found it ironic that he made such a statement, because he had just faulted religions for providing answers to questions inappropriately, yet then he did so himself since he doesn't know that any aliens exist. He should have acknowledged that we have no evidence of any other lifeforms existing elsewhere instead of stating they do as if it were fact, especially since he had just said that "scientists love not knowing!"
Krauss did, however, make some jokes that were funny and not too hurtful, I felt. These were a few playful jokes aimed at biologists and non-mathemeticians such as myself.
I especially liked his humor when he said, "Using the miracle of modern mathematics, you can rewrite that equation," before showing how the cosmological term can be moved impressively from one side of an equation to the other by adding it to each side.
He also showed a cute cartoon of two cowboys on horseback watching a distant train, which was his segue into an explanation of the redshift in microwave radiation that has occurred during the universe's accelerating expansion. One of the cowboys said, "I love hearing that lonesome wail of the train whistle as the magnitude of the frequencies of the wave changes due to the Doppler effect."
I thought that was amusing.
All in all, I felt it was a good, clear lecture in terms of science, but Krauss mocked religious viewpoints while falling prey to some of the very faults he ascribed to religious thinking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by skaltezon
Krauss/Scherrer's concern for our descendants' ability to construct an accurate cosmology 100 billion years from now is laughably optimistic about the more immediate problem of our sun's approaching 'red giant' phase a mere 5 billion years from now.
Computer simulations suggest we should find another planet to hang out on before we get toasted and ultimately swallowed.
Hope dims that Earth will survive Sun's death - space - 22 February 2008 - New Scientist
Or 'we' could be taken to mean any intelligence from our galactic family of the merging Local Group whose descendants will be around to ponder cosmological niceties long after evidence of the rest of the universe has slipped over the event horizon.
Sagan/Shklovskii's Intelligent Life in the Universe is a good read. |
Yes, my interpretation is that Krauss and Scherrer know all life on earth is toast, and so they were not talking about our descendents. Instead, they were considering the conclusions that potential alien astronomers many years from now on other planets in our galaxy may be able to draw about our universe's origins as evidence of the Big Bang becomes undetectable.
The focus of the Krauss/Scherrer article on the viewpoint of future alien civilizations made the article poignantly sad but beautiful to me, because it shows how the authors can appreciate our brief explosion of awareness and life while knowing it is doomed. Despite the unpleasant future we earthlings face as predicted by science, these cosmologists still have the presence of mind and imagination to consider the welfare of future alien civilizations who will be following their own similar journey of scientific discovery about our universe's history.
The Krauss/Scherrer article reminds me of a news story that struck me when I heard it as a child. A trapeze artist performing without a net fell during her act. Knowing she was doomed, she had the presence of mind to perform a swan dive right to her very end. I admire cosmologists who show similar grace by trying to understand as much as they can about our own future demise, and take pleasure in living and thinking even without any promise of a cosy, happy ending.
My view of the heroic cosmologist, thinking about the origin and future of the universe while plunging into oblivion:
