New Scientist Responds

I just received the following comment from Grahm Lawton, features editor for the New Scientist magazine.

"Graham Lawton, features editor, New Scientist said...
Disclaimer: This comment is from the features editor at New Scientist.

John, don't shoot the messenger... Boltzmann brains are a genuine problem in cosmology. Serious cosmologists take them seriously. We report on what they're thinking, in an honest and balanced way. What's the problem?

We don't make this stuff up, you know - if you don't believe me, plug "Bolzmann brains" into Google scholar. If you don't approve of the fact that people are working on this problem (spending your tax dollars) that is your prerogative, but have a go at them, not us!"

I think Grahm makes a reasonable point. If, in fact, the Boltzmann Brains 'problem' is treated seriously by serious scientists then I grant it is worthy of a mention in a science magazine.

That said, I don't think 'New Scientist' gets off quite so easily. If serious scientists take it seriously then the magazine has a responsibility to communicate why we the reader should do the same. In this I feel the article failed miserably. A brief introduction section about the 'problem' read like something from 'Alice and Wonderland' or a Douglas Adams novel.

Let me be clear. I am not personally a scientist. I don't have a degree in physics. I'm just your regular Joe pretty smart engineer. Magazines like the New Scientist target people like me and attempt to present current concepts in science in layman terms so that we can appreciate and grasp the problems. I enjoy many of the articles in 'New Scientist' and I don't plan on cancelling my subscription over this one article.

All that said, I really can't retract much of what I said about the so called Boltzmann Brain 'problem'. It sounded like bullshit when I read it, it sounded like bullshit when I researched it online afterwards, and I found many other commentators on the Internet who shared my general opinion (though, perhaps, not voiced quite so strongly.) (See the following commentaries. Occasional Stirrings blog. A Plea to save New Scientist.

Even if pink unicorns are going to magically manifest out of the quantum foam (or some other kind of brain) billions upon billions of years from now, I'm not certain I can muster up enough interest to care.

Has physics and cosmology become exhausted to the point that the only thing left for them to do is play abstract games in philosophy? Is there no room left for experimental science? Are scientists now reduced to playing with sophisticated thought experiments and bizarre mathematics that only a handful of people on the planet can grasp?

I suppose it is the engineer in me that fails to see any practical purpose in pursuing questions like 'Boltzmann Brains' and I find it truly bizarre to describe it as a 'problem'.

Here's a problem for you. How do we use science to elevate humanity out of the struggles we are faced with? I would much rather have scientists working on ways to insure the improvement and sustained viability of both the human race and this planet rather than cogitate upon hypothetical imaginary and abstract concepts, some of which aren't expected to manifest for billions of years.

That's just my two cents. If you think 'Boltzmann Brains' are a pressing problem that needs to be solved post haste, more power to you.

----------------------------------------------------------

In fairness I should probably post a brief excerpt from the New Scientist article so that you, the reader, can judge for yourself.

Here is the first paragraph from the article.

"POP. What are the chances that an everyday object - a rock, a chair, you name it - could suddenly appear out of thin air? Not zero, surprisingly. In fact, given enough space and time, it is conceivable that a conscious being could arise, even if only for a microsecond."

OK, such an event would be incredibly unlikely, but not impossible - at least in theory. Physicists have dubbed such hypothetical beings 'Boltzmann Brains"...

...

"Now Vilenkin and others are trying to figure out just how common Boltzmann brains could be and whether there is a way to banish them, or at least stop them from outnumbering us. Indeed the Boltzmann brains problem is forcing cosmologists to revisit their most crucial assumptions about the structure of the Universe. Either they must explain how the cosmos can produce enough ordinary observers to stay ahead of the 'pop-up' brains, or we may have to accept that our ideas are wrong and the ultimate fate of the universe is coming sooner than we thought."

Note how we went from an infinitesimally small possibility of a random table, chair, bicycle, or brain from popping into existence for a microsecond to a terrible problem that affects the ultimate fate of the Universe!!????

From this introduction the article discusses some background and history of the concept and immediately launches into a lengthy discourse as if these 'hypothetical beings' were a real and serious 'problem' to be solved. According to this introduction I should be just as worried about randomly appearing tables, chairs, dinosaurs, pink unicorns, or any other remote possibility. In fact, it sounds just like Douglas Adam's 'improbability drive'.

Starting with a subject which is entirely hypothetical and extrapolating from that some sort of serious problem is a bit too much for me to grab onto. The source of the 'problem' is expressed as the 'number of observers' in the Universe. However, at no point is it explained why having one, zero, or many observers affects the Universe one way or the other.

Maybe I'm just too dumb of a brain to 'get this' and, perhaps, a 'Boltzmann Brain' will suddenly appear and take over my blog for me.

Frankly this all sounds like a piece of abstract philosophy and I'm not quite certain that cosmologists or physicists are necessarily qualified to be the best philosophers in the world.