ONOZ! OMG!

(click for the full effect)

Mankind 'shortening universe life.'

This 'story' annoys the crap out of me. First, there's the ridiculous supposition that somehow we're shortening the life of the universe. C'mon! It's bad enough people slurp up global warming kool-aid, but now our study of the cosmos has reduced the probability of survival of the universe? Please. The universe was around well before we showed up, and it'll be here long after we die out or evolve into something else. Whatever the case, observing something, whether it's a cat in a box or 'dark matter' doesn't physically change something. An object might change due to the circumstances surrounding the observation, such as being exposed to heat or light, but inanimate objects and mere matter don't change simply because they can be sensed in some sense.

What also irks me is the author's claim that quantum theory is the "most successful theory we have." Wha? By whose measure? In the very same article is a link to the Garret Lisi, the "surfer dude" physicist who has supposedly given us a "theory of everything"--the "Holy Grail" of physics. But M-theory, which combined five super-string theories (all supposedly the theories of everything), was supposed to be the "Holy Grail" of physics. Not only does the multitude of "Holy Grail" theories tend to undercut the author's position, but none of these theories work unless you make shit up. Case in point; Lisi's "exceptional theory of everything" only works if you include 20 "theoretical" (read not real) particles. M-theory falls on its ass because it fails to predict anything empirical (read real). In my unscientific lay opinion, this reliance on the unreal makes these theories less than successful.

The irony in all this is that science embraces the "unreal" when it's convenient, leading to absurd notions like this, yet it mocks religion when it does the same thing. Thing is, a notion like a supernatural (not explainable by science) entity makes way more sense in explaining the origins of the universe and life than anything science has come up with. The universe has a certain order and predictability that seems rather improbable if you accept that everything we know of came from the explosion of a primeval atom. After all, where did the atom come from and why would you expect order out of what was ostensibly a chaotic event? Order is the product of intent. Life also has a certain order and predictability that is very improbable if you accept that all life, from a bacterium to a human, including every plant and animal in between, originated from RNA (the current fashionable theory). So, we're to believe that life on Earth originated from RNA, which doesn't exist naturally in the absence of life? That's quite a chicken-egg paradox ya got there, Dr. Bunson Honeydew.

I like science. I like that it offers answers to fundamental questions, and when applied through engineering, makes really cool stuff. What I don't like is when science comes up with grandiose theories that rely on 2 + 2 = 5 math or makes up theories that are wholly umprovable... or makes whack claims, as is the case here.