Lawrence Krauss and shortening the lifespan of the universe

[Trollfaz]

That was 10 years ago, when he proposed that humans are shortening the lifespan of the universe by looking at it. Is this nonsense?

 

[phinds]

That was 10 years ago, when he proposed that humans are shortening the lifespan of the universe by looking at it. Is this nonsense?

Give a citation please. I suspect you misunderstood what he said, but it's kinda hard to tell since you did not give a citation and quote his exact statement.

 

[Trollfaz]

"Several interesting open questions are raised, including whether observing the cosmological configuration of our universe may ultimately alter its mean lifetime."

 

[Bandersnatch]

Have a look here:
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/has-observing-the-universe-sealed-its-fate.199811/
(includes Krauss himself posting comments)
One more thread here:
https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...its-duration-recent-krauss-dent-paper.200060/

tl;dr; - it was not meant to suggest that there is a causal connection between observation and the universe's lifetime.

 

[rootone]

The Universe exists.
I'm sure that humans being in it makes it no different from what it would be without them.

 

[PeterDonis]

"Several interesting open questions are raised, including whether observing the cosmological configuration of our universe may ultimately alter its mean lifetime."

Where is this quote from?

 

[OCR]

Where is this quote from?

Maybe from Lawrence Krauss ... you think ? ...

Need more ?

 

[PeterDonis]

Maybe from Lawrence Krauss ... you think ? ...

Need more ?

These are helpful links, yes. Your attitude, however, is not. It's the responsibility of a person quoting someone to give a reference for the quote. You've helped Trollfaz out by doing that for him, which is fine; but it's certainly not the job of the moderators to do that for everyone.

 

[Chronos]

Lawrence Krauss has an interesting sense of humor. He delights in titillating marginally informed pop sci audiences by raising possibilities that are only viable when you tweak certain assumptions that go into interpreting the data. I always viewed it as a teaching aid intended to help the truly curious understand how and why we rely on certain 'assumptions' and what happens when you push them a little too hard. He is a very popular speaker. You can get a sense of just how seriously he regards his remarks are by sizing up his audience. The Lawrence Krauss that gives planetarium speeches and magazine interviews is not the same Lawrence Krauss who addresses scientific conferences attended by professional physicists. He and Michio Kaku number among the science celebrities who make a living through this form of entertainment. I view it as something of value by promoting popular interest in science.

 

[Trollfaz]

Well, I guess I misunderstood what he said. Apologies

 

[Chronos]

I did not intend to suggest professional scientists get some perverse satisfaction from misleading lay audiences. It's just a device to elevate popular public interest in science. If it interests you enough to provoke a little research, it's not phd difficult to figure out the context of their remarks

 

[juliakate]

I think misunderstanding

 

[PeterDonis]

If it interests you enough to provoke a little research, it's not phd difficult to figure out the context of their remarks

The problem I have with this approach is that the vast majority of the people in the marginally informed pop sci audiences, as you call them, have neither the time, nor the background knowledge, nor the inclination to do any such research. They think these scientists are authorities who are telling them the literal truth. And the scientists do nothing to disabuse people of this notion. I don't think the overall effect of this is to promote popular interest in science; I think it promotes popular misunderstanding of science.

 

[phinds]

The problem I have with this approach is that the vast majority of the people in the marginally informed pop sci audiences, as you call them, have neither the time, nor the background knowledge, nor the inclination to do any such research. They think these scientists are authorities who are telling them the literal truth. And the scientists do nothing to disabuse people of this notion. I don't think the overall effect of this is to promote popular interest in science; I think it promotes popular misunderstanding of science.

I dislike it as pedagogical methodology, but I think it does both even while misleading about specifics.