
Written in the skies: why quantum mechanics might be wrong - nickb
http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080515/full/news.2008.829.html
======
ardit33
unfortunately you have to pay to read the article. Too bad.

~~~
henning
Here's an excerpt:

    
    
        But Valentini thinks that the stalemate could be broken by analysing the cosmic microwave background — the relic radiation left behind after the Big Bang. The cosmic microwave background contains hot and cold temperature spots that were generated by quantum fluctuations in the early Universe and then amplified when the Universe expanded.
    
        Using the principles of quantum mechanics, cosmologists have calculated how these spots should be distributed.
    
        However, Valentini’s calculations show that the hidden-variables theory might give a different answer. “Any violation of quantum mechanics in the early Universe would have a knock-on effect that we could see today,” says Valentini.
    
        Almost all measurements of the cosmic microwave background seem to fit well with the predictions of quantum mechanics, says Valentini. But intriguingly, a distortion that fits one of Valentini’s proposed signatures for a failure of quantum mechanics was recently detected by Amit Yadav and Ben Wandelt at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (see 'Deflating inflation?'). That result has yet to be confirmed by independent analyses, but it is tantalizing, Valentini adds.
    
        “It’s far too early to say that this is definite evidence of a breakdown in quantum mechanics — but it is a possibility,” he says. 
    

I don't get it. If a theory has great predictive and explanatory power, it's
not really "wrong". Better, more accurate models are a good thing, as is
nipping bad ones in the bud before they have a chance to take root. But when
you have a theory that is pedagogically viable and empirically verified,
that's a much better point to progress from than rejecting anything which
isn't completely bulletproof and without flaws.

Didn't Einstein say "all models are wrong,some models are useful?"

------
LPTS
This is great. These are incredibly exciting new developments.

There was a great one I read a few days ago about our conception of space as a
continuum being an approximation. Space might be better understood as being
quantized.

[http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/080514-black-
holes.htm...](http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/080514-black-holes.html)

There is also the idea of doubly special relativity, in which there is a
shortest unit of space, which all frames of reference measure the same that is
analogous to the speed of light being the fastest light can go and all frames
measure the same.

When I studied philosophy in college, my interest was philosophy of
mind/consciousness studies. My papers were mostly papers that examined the
philosophical implications of assuming space was quantized and doubly special
relativity were true on theories of consciousness. I had to waste entirely too
much effort arguing that philosophers should pay really close attention to the
science when doing mind or ontology. I'm excited to see that these
developments are unfolding. This means there is a huge space in academic
philosophy to merge this new information in physics with philosophical
theories about consciousness, spacetime, and ontology.

These developments might indicate that once in a generation revolutions in
physics and philosophy are imminent over the next five to eight years
(assuming the academic philosophers can hold the circle jerks long enough to
hear and grok what the physics people are saying.).

