[Anonymous Boy (OP)]

I recently read an article in which Lawrence Krauss says that humans can destroy the universe. I think it is nonsense.

[Anonymous Boy (OP)]

I can't link to the article, but here's a quote

incredible as it seems, our detection of the dark energy may have reduced the life expectancy of the universe

[Kryptid]

I think this is spoken about right here: https://io9.gizmodo.com/we-might-be-destroying-the-universe-just-by-looking-at-1514652112. An interesting quote:

Krauss re-stated his position after his paper on the subject came out and made a bit of a stir. He doesn't truly believe that we might end the universe by looking at it too closely. The truth is even more unsettling. The data that led to the false vacuum universe theory came from observing a supernova in 1998. Given the data about the supernova, Krauss believes that the universe is likely to be in its high-rate-of-decay state. So although we might not be the reason the universe ceases to be, we still might be the victims of its collapse.

[jeffreyH]

The Higgs potential and any false vacuum potential must be related. Would a vacuum collapse produce lighter/heavier particles or only massless ones? Of interest but no one would be around to make the observations.

[yor_on]

A 'false vacuum' is not a proven thing, although it has gained support from physicists.  Have a read http://www.askamathematician.com/2012/07/q-what-is-the-false-vacuum-and-are-we-living-in-it/

The most difficult thing with articles like that is to backtrack them to their origins. When you've done that, trying to find all particulars, you will be free to make up your own mind about it.
=

Would you call thoughts a tangible thing?
Something that change the way we see the world?

[chiralSPO]

Given the extreme violence the universe has already survived, and the scale of the energies involved, I don't believe humans could ever destroy the universe. Even in thousands of years, if we have a much better understanding of how everything works, and the energy of several stars at our disposal, what could we possibly do that would tug at the strings of spacetime more than colliding supermassive black holes, or the dark energy that accelerates the expansion of the universe? what could we possibly do to outmatch the output power of a supernova? what could we possibly do?

[syhprum]

I think humans can precipitate an extinction event on the Earth in fact it may well have already started but the universe is a big place I don't think we can have any effect

[chiralSPO]

I think humans can precipitate an extinction event on the Earth in fact it may well have already started but the universe is a big place I don't think we can have any effect

Agreed.

Another thing I realized is: even if we could inflict some "mortal damage" to the universe, if the effects spread at c or slower, there will be vast stretches of currently observable universe that it would never catch up to due to superluminal expansion.

[vampster]

I am willing to bet my house and bank account (both cents!) on "no"!
All kidding aside: I find it hard to imagine that the human race could ever come up with anything that hasn't happened at least once in the last 13.8 billion years.

[yor_on]

It depends on what this universe 'is'.

[PmbPhy]

Lawrence Krauss

You're

I recently read an article in which Lawrence Krauss says that humans can destroy the universe. I think it is nonsense.

You're quiet right of course. Humans cannot destroy the universe. But I think that his work was misinterpreted. Krauss later restated part of his paper so that it wouldn't be misinterpreted.


your_on - Its a misconception that anything in physics has ever been proven. Physics is not about proving things. In that sense the existence of electrons and photons has never been proven. For the same reason existence of false vacuum will never be proven.

A friend of mine explains how physics is not about proving things in a video he did for me. See:
http://www.newenglandphysics.org/common_misconceptions/Alan_Guth_04.mp4

[yor_on]

Well, there are degrees of confidence to any statement Pete, and in my eyes the 'false vacuum' is, at best, a hypothesis without any significant proofs to its existence. Doesn't mean it has to be wrong, but then there need to be more meat on them bones. And yes, I agree, the idea of 'photons' is still open for interpretations, as well as waves.