Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Scientific American celebrates possible multiverse theory – from cosmic dust?


Remember this story from yesterday?: Planck satellite data says that big BICEP2 cosmic inflation multiverse is just dust

(If nothing else, given all the hype, this episode shows how much some need to believe we live in a multiverse.)

It turns out, according to Peter Woit, Scientific American has a feature (October 2014) that assumes the find isn’t just dust, promoting Larry Krauss:

If the recent discovery of gravitational waves emanating from the early universe holds up under scrutiny, it will illuminate a connection between gravity and quantum mechanics and perhaps, in the process, verify the existence of other universes

You’d have to pay for the article, but until the dust settles, why bother?

Didn’t science used to have higher standards? For example, waiting until we were sure it isn’t just dust?

See also: William Lane Craig is “disingenuous,” and he “shocked” Larry Krauss in a recent debate?

Hat tip: Not Even Wrong

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Neil Rickert at 2: Scientific American is owned by Nature but apparently now run by Twitter. https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/science/scientific-american-may-be-owned-by-nature-but-it-is-now-run-by-twitter/ I'd suggest Nature spin it off to Murdoch or Gannett or something. News
I subscribe to SciAm and find it interesting. Last months Evolution Issue no exception. The last page had a summary of the "95% Chimp" idea showing chimps/gorilla/neanderthal - and suggesting sapien/Neanderthal might best be undestood split from those monkey dudes. The Gravitational Wave issue arrived today. Larry the Hat gives a summary of Inflation Theory after pointing out the fine-tuning in the Universe today. Larry doesn't like fine-tuning. Dust is discussed on a page too. Larry doesn't like dust either. Larry finishes his piece with giddy anticipation of Multiverse Extravaganzas. Larry was probably quite bummed with the Planck data just released. Boohoo:( ppolish
“Scientific American” is not a science research journal.
Sure, but it reports based on scientific papers. It is not making up reports. the bystander
Cosmology is based more on theories than on actual experiments - may be because it can't be done- so it is just speculations by a bunch of people. What bothers me is that the discovery of 'gravitational waves' was supposed to have been made in 'clean' part of universe !! so it is clear they don't even know which part of universe is 'clean'. How do you expect people to believe cosmology is nothing but crap ? the bystander
"Scientific American" is not a science research journal. I stopped subscribing many years ago, so I haven't been following what they publish. But, as I recall, they have always had a varied mix of articles -- some on settled science, some on history of science, and some on speculative science.
Didn’t science used to have higher standards?
I don't see this as related to the standards of science. Neil Rickert
Even if it isn't dust, it's still a cockamamie theory. There is no way to prove that a certain arrangement of cosmic dust was caused by hypothetical gravitational waves that occurred right after the Big Bang. It's just pure conjecture bordering on superstition. We've seen those wild pseudoscientific conjectures before. The 'Big Bang caused the cosmic microwave background' conjecture comes to mind. Mapou

Leave a Reply