Regular reader, not regular poster, but just wanted to drop a note of thanks to Count Iblis. The paper you linked to just happened to feed in to a short SF story I was writing - even though I didn’t follow the maths (I’m a biologist by training, so…) it put some conceptual meat on the central concept.

So, ta.

Speaking of teleportation, what are your thoughts on the recently published “Progressive field-state collapse and quantum non-demolition photon counting”?
I’ve given a brief summary
here and the press release can be found here

The fact that the universe is accelerating is *more interesting* than the fact that brown dwarfs exist. One shouldn’t rub it in; but equally, one should not talk as if multiple universes, and even talk about multiple universes, are like some kind of scientific pornography.

I would find this assertion about accelerating universes > brown dwarfs depressing, not because I disagree but because of the finality with which it’s stated. Fortunately, I am confident that there is some other universe among the zillions in the multiverse, where a bunch of astrophysicists are posting to a blog to talk about how brown dwarfs are really cool but dark energy is a boring old crock that even Einstein gave up on.

Sean, just FYI, as a card-carrying member of the Public I personally find the very technical articles you post much more interesting and valuable than the philosophy ones. I don’t post in them because I have nothing of substance to add and don’t want to cloud the waters with smartass jokesterism or observational metacommentary, which is about all I have to offer there. But I’ll gladly start posting “wow that’s interesting” comments so you don’t feel like you’re talking to the void.

Absolutely, that’s very well said.
You guys have somewhat distorted view of the Public.
The Public reads things like A Road to Reality and the Public don’t necessary believe that Reality TV is real.
I will conjecture that to the Public most of so called popular discourses about science by “the media” is naive.

But though the big bang may have now entered the vocabulary of most people on earth, whether there was a big bang and how big the bang was, whether the universe is an accelerating pancake or expanding pizza, whether the universe is 13.7 billion years old and how many billion light years the furthest galaxy is, is only of relative interest (or importance) to a few. Whether there is dark matter, dark energy, a higgs field or strings, and how nuclear energy works, only really matters to joe public if it can improve his life, make his car go faster and pour the perfect pint. And we are not likely to be going on tourism to the Moon or Mars anytime soon - never mind anywhere beyond the solar system.

Though never say never - some people out there think mankind is at the cusp of some major discovery (like the wheel, telecoms, the combustion engine? the internet?) about to propel human knowledge into some dimension or realm hitherto unknown - to the next level - in gamespeak or computer jargon.

I do think multiverses and their implications have an unavoidable role in hard physics, given the condition: If the underpinnings of our world promote variation in kind (different kinds of laws, etc.), then Bayesian type reasoning (about what more to expect given what we already see) seems unavoidable. For example, if there’s a “Landscape” of possible ways for the universe to turn out, given “strings” as the fundamental building block, etc., then we have to ask: if we are in a certain region that’s possible from that matrix, what likelihood for other features. I mean, if 5% of universes with our currently known properties should also have property X, and correcting for their chance of occurrence (for example, that those would have twice the chance of coming into being as the others), then “at random” there’s a 10% chance our world has property X - ? That isn’t too far off the usual practice of doing an experiment and talking of likely errors etc. It can even be tested to some extent: See how many of the predictions come true, of course.

Many of those posts are, of course, largely above my head in their details, but I do have enough knowledge to glean something of interest from most topics. And if not, I store as much of the content as I can in the back of my head; and over the long term, often that kind of un-integrated data hoarding eventually leads to some later moment of clarity or understanding. I’m still waiting for my Higgs moment, but so are a lot of people…

===========

Yes, interested laypeople’s attention is drawn towards physics/astronomy/cosmology by two things: cool looking images and articles with punchy headlines that seem to address ontological topics (without using the word “ontological,” which would get you at least mocked if not beaten in many quarters). Whether this is a good thing or not is beside the point, it is what it is, and to bemoan it is a waste of time. The question is: can you, as scientists interested in educating the public, then provide hooks to more rigorous, but still interesting topics for the subset of this group that might be willing to follow you?

There lies the value (in this regard) of a blog such as this one. A person might follow a link to a philosophical, political, or beer related post, and scroll down a bit and find themselves reading something with more substance.

Which, I can guarantee you, will work a lot better than the tiresome internet trollery demonstrated by some of the folks who regularly come here looking to pick a fight. Seriously, nobody likes a troll.

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

I’ve read Susskind’s book, I’m working on the more recent Smolin one and have Woit’s coming in from the library at some point in the near future. It’s an interesting debate I guess, but only in a metaphysical way; the interest is in the debate itself, the smart people arguing, not in the subject so much. It all seems like kind of a sideshow. The main reason I’m reading those is that I have trouble finding accessible-to-me books about more concrete current topics that I’d find more compelling. Morowitz’s book on emergence was OK, but very uneven with conspicuous stretches of handwaving at key junctures…well, back to Powells I guess, though they have Tao of Physics and crap like that mixed in with real books in the science sections, which irks me to no end….

To the list of reasons why multiverses comes up we can add discussions with creationists and others with antiscience sentiments.

It is much easier to use as an example to show bystanding fence sitters that one can answer how creationist misconceptions about finetunings fail in natural settings. (Admittedly, analogies can be easier yet. But this is more convincing.)

So multiverses are useful as well. All in all, I doubt discussing them will go away from the blogosphere.

Modern Cosmology: Science or Folktale?
http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/55839?&print=yes

HEY… somebody who publically agrees with me!

In its original form, an expanding Einstein model had an attractive, economic elegance. Alas, it has since run into serious difficulties, which have been cured only by sticking on some ugly bandages: inflation to cover horizon and flatness problems…

Oh, no wonder…
Michael J. Disney is emeritus professor

The historian of science Daniel Boorstin once remarked: “The great obstacle to discovering the shape of the Earth, the continents and the oceans was not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge.”

Ain’t that the truth though…

This is really not innocuous, for two related reasons:

1. Propping up a failed massive research program by abandoning conventional ideas about what is science and what isn’t doesn’t further the advance of science at all, quite the opposite.

2. There is heavy promotional activity of this to the general public (e.g. Susskind’s book), and to the rest of the physics community by some of the most prominent people in the field from places like Stanford, Berkeley and Harvard. You can argue that this may get some people interested in science who wouldn’t otherwise pay attention, and after they get interested, they’ll move on to the sensible stuff. But it seems equally likely that this will just drive away sensible people from the field, and actually do damage to the public’s understanding of science and respect for scientists. As for the effect on the rest of the scientific community, you really need to pay attention to the reaction of some of your colleagues when they are subjected to a colloquium talk promoting this stuff. This reaction often could be characterized as visceral disgust, and if particle theorists find that they are getting little support from other members of their departments in the future, this will be one of the main reasons.

It can hinder “progress” greatly. But it also acts to check the validity of any progress. I think it’s probably worth slowing down history’s progress into the future a bit, as long as it’s not individual egos that are hindering new ideas. But since this is, regardless of Science, a human endeavor, I have a feeling we’ll always be stuck with the crazy human factors in play.

From my perspective, I think it’s amazing and wonderful to receive these glimpses into the inner workings of a discipline, in its fullest range, from the down-to-earth “what we had for lunch” to the more exactingly abstract. I even enjoy the self-indulgent pontificating, and the interesting and useful dialog it so often brings. I trust that. And I consider it very worth-while, at least from my own selfish perspective.

I particularly appreciate the visibility it brings to a traditionally closed discipline — I appreciate the opportunity to examine in more detail what these maniacs are up to. It fosters an interdisciplinary forum, not even limited to the strict disciplines of Science.

Barring the many cans of worms that accompany such things, it seems inspiring.

Well a few have, at various levels of esoterica. I like Baez’ This Week’s Finds and The Unapologetic Mathematician for starters. Frankly I come here, or to NEW, mostly for the occasional links to the deeper golden nuggets, for which I thank you for providing.