Is The Fabric of Space-Time Woven With Noise?

Grubert writes: "Some Australian mathematicians have found a way to explain many deep problems in fundamental physics using mathematical models based on noise. (This statement is slightly inaccurate; read the New Scientist article."

Given the justified head-scratching that accompanies any investigation into the origin, age, weight and dimensionality of the universe, and considering that this theory bears on each of these, it's exciting stuff. Could this be the beginning of a breakthrough in our understanding of /everything/?

Comments

Re:Slashdotted Already!?

[Haven]

Whats funny is, that they can't give me what is probably 40kB of text, but they can send a completely useless image to my browser. Hm...

If so, then there's one obvious conclusion.

[Apuleius]

(The article is unavailable, so I make this comment in blissful ignorance.)

If there is noise in the fabric of space-time, then surely it is carried by a set of as yet undiscovered particles.

And the bast names for them are

firstposton,
natalieporton,
hotgritson, et cetera.

Patching a leaky tire with too many holes

[Duxup]

I've always been a bit suspicious of some theories in physics (granted due to the /. effect I haven't been able to evaluate this one as of yet) that seem to patch holes in other theories. So many new theories now seem to be created to fit together questions about other theories I sometimes wonder if such fields aren't in danger of falling into themselves and just becoming a collaborative attempt to fulfill certain beliefs. I remember studying previous beliefs in history about physics or any science for that matter, and I always wonder if our current theories won't be pointed out as just as lame as past ones are now. Granted I'm far from a physicist and this is just my humble opinion.

Re:Patching a leaky tire with too many holes

[FigWig]

Well, I certainly hope that in the future our current theories are considered 'lame', otherwise physicists of the future will be out of a job.

Any scientific theory is just a model of reality. We continually refine these, but at any moment we try to use the most useful one, ie the one that explains the most and allows future theorizing. We accept that it isn't the truth, but you gotta work from something. Unfortunately science is sometimes held back by personal ambition/egoism, but I think these problems are inherent in any human endeavour. But when evidence is found to contradict these theories, the theories are eventually rethought.

One problem with some TOE (theories of everything) is that they have so many parameters that while certain ranges of those parameters are disproved, the theory as a whole may never be disproved.

The point is - the scientific method works, eventually.

New Scientist is a joke

[Binx Bolling]

The whole rag is filled with pseudo-science news. I was interviewed by one of their reporters. They take ordinary science, jazz it up into something star-trekky and unrecognizable, munge their quotes, sensationalize out the wazoo, etc. Maybe in a former life it was a respectable British journal. These days it has sunk as low as the rest of British journalism.

Eureka!

[milliyear]

so THAT'S what those voices in my head are!!

Another Fun Cosmological Link for Fun

[MattW]

Chris Langan, the Long Island bar bouncer with an IQ of 190+, puts forth his "theory of everything" (or, in this case, a summary):

The CTMU

His misuse of the term "Cantor's Set", among other things, is annoying, but it is still an ambitious attempt to explain the universe. Maybe this will tide the bored people over until New Scientist recovers from being slashdotted ;)

Shhhhh.

[Anonymous Coward]

Scientist 1: I think I can describe the fabric of space-time mathematically.

Scientist 2: Can you keep the noise down, I'm trying to study.

Scientist 1: That's just it, man. Noise.

Scientist 2: Be quiet, please.

Universe: LALALALA LAAAAA LA LALALALA LALALALA LALALLALALALALLA LALALALALAAAAAAAALA LALAAA LA!

Re:Shhhhh.

[SteveM]

Theme from the Banana Splits?

Statistical Philosophy

[Baldrson]

When Shannon extracted the unit of information from the laws of thermodynamics, he helped people understand that statistical laws are interwoven with the fundamentals of natural philosphy in a way that we sometimes find confusing. There is a good deal of "bit" in "it".

Now next stage has been reached where the core laws of quantum mechanics (the weird ones) have been shown to be theorems of a statistical theory that includes negative probabilities, rather than "laws of nature" per se, in the same way that Shannon's information theory is properly thought of as a domain of statistical philosophy rather than an a priori natural phenomenon.

It is reasonable to suspect that many profound consequent discoveries, such as those reported in this article, are waiting to be unearthed as the depth of weird statistical philosophy sinks in.

Re:Statistical Philosophy

[fperez]

As for the article linked to in "the core laws of quantum mechanics ...":

There's a slim chance of this not being a crackpot's work, but I seriously doubt it. Over the years I've seen a fair share of physics "outside geniuses" who've discovered something which radically transforms our world view and which every scientist before them had missed. Every single one of those has turned out to be a complete crackpot.

Before you turn on the flamethrowers: yes, I'm fully aware that Einstein was a patent office clerk and not a university physicist at the time, but if you read any of his 1905 papers they are solid science from the first word to the last. This is not!

A few tips:

- It's too long (86 pages) and wordy, full of adjectives. Typical of crackpots in love with their own work but with zero experience in actual scientific writing.

- These guys don't know how to use latex properly (everything is in text mode), which basically every working physicist uses to communicate.

- There's way too little math for something that "deep". And what little there is doesn't look promising. I didn't read the whole thing (barely skimmed it) but one "theorem" (Causal Trace Theo, p. 52) is a linear algebra triviality, while their use of "mixed states" is incorrect. In statistical quantum mechanics, a mixed state (more properly referred to as a mixed ensemble) is an ensemble of states which can *not* be expressed as a linear combination of states. This is fundamentally different from simply expressing any pure state as a linear combination of other states, which is nothing but a choice of basis (another linear algebra triviality). Mixed ensembles are precisely what makes statistical quantum physics different from "regular" quantum mechanics of simple systems, and is a topic not covered by most undergraduate quantum mech. books.

As I said earlier, there's a non-vanishing probability that these guys aren't crackpots. If you ask me, it's comparable to that of a cracked eggshell reassembling itself: non-zero in the purest statistical sense, zero for all practical purposes.

Re:Statistical Philosophy

[Baldrson]

fperez who has exactly one comment to his name on /. writes:

There's a slim chance of this not being a crackpot's work, but I seriously doubt it

Here is a proposal:

0) You identify yourself in as verifiable a way as have I.

1) I'll grant $1000 to the www.sourceXchange.com for the open source software project of your choice (or specification) if, by the end of the year 2000, a paper on the disputed idea authored by one of the disputed authors is not published by a scientific periodical to which most major university libraries are subscribers (at least 3 of Stanford, Cal Tech, MIT, CMU and Princeton).

2) Otherwise you'll grant $10,000 to www.sourceXchange.com for the open source software project of my choice (or specification).

Note that I'm setting 1 in 10 odds when the strong wording of your assertion could easily justify setting 1 in 100 odds. But it would be unfair of me to take advantage your willingness to disclose the exact measure of your confidence for public benefit when I haven't done so (except to state my assertion as fact). So 1 in 10 seems quite fair and $10,000 should be within your means if you are a high technology professional.

I await your reply here.

Re:Statistical Philosophy

[mattorb]

Leaping madly where I don't belong:

I'd just like to point out that your bit about "$10,000 should be within your means if you are a high technology professional" is crap. "High-technology professional," whatever the hell that is, sure. Physicist -- no way in hell. :-) (I don't know any physicists who would be willing to wager $10k on anything, much less something like this. Notice that when Kip Thorne and Steven Hawking made their famous series of wagers, they were for things like a subscription to Playboy instead.)

And at the risk of getting involved in a flamewar not of my own design: I think defending your ideas by offering a ridiculous wager is not the best way to convince any members of the scientific community of the veracity of your claims. What fperez says is wrong? Fine, tell me how. Your assertion is intriguing, but a follow-up post saying, "my collaborators are so-and-so, we've submitted to PhysRev A, etc." would've been (IMHO) more reasonable than this.

No offense, I hope. :-)

quantum noise

[Anonymous Coward]

This theory reminds me of what John Archibald Wheeler came to call "quantum foam" (you do know your quantum mechanics - don't you?). The idea was that at extremely small distances (known as the Planck length), the concepts of space and time break down into a kind of soupy foam. The idea that a kind of chaotic froth or quantum noise is at the heart of physics has a long history.It would be interesting to read the article, but the stupid site is down. Personally I read SciAm, not New Scientist.

Is the fabric of slashdot woven with trolls?

[Gutzalpus]

A new study from this week's New Slashdot Science reveals that not only are trolls inescapable in /. message boards, but that they are actually woven into the "fabric" of slashdot itself, due to unpredictable interactions of certain aspects of the source code.

It is believed that this theory could answer many of the questions of current /. users. Such questions as:

1. Why are there so many useless, garbage posts?
2. Why do people persist in clogging the discussions with pure crap?

These questions become irrelevant and easily answered once it is realized that this sort of behavior is innate to slashdot and cannot be stopped. See newscientist.com for more information on this and other incredible scientific developments. Additionally please see Weekly World News for additional updates.

Admistration problems solved with random data

[doomy]

Hello,

I've got a basement network that overtime grew pretty large and completely blew up on admistration issues once the 386 beowulf cluster was put into place.

I have very little time to solve most of the problems on my 198.169.0.x network, thus I called into my employment a very special node on my server. Yes /dev/urandom is now my adminstrator, after a sucessful kernel patch and modifications to my distribtion so that root can only be /dev/urandom, I have found that server problems are now being resolved on it's own and that the uptime has remained a constantantly universally random number.

In time I would instruct my cluster to create a HOWTO on this procedure.
--

Re:Wow!

[Kris_J]

Maybe there's another /. in an alternate universe that actually posts stories in a timely fashion...

Infinte Improbabilty Drive

[doomy]

From the HHGTTG,

The principle of generating small amounts of finite improbability
by simply hooking the logic circuits of a Bambleweeny 57 Sub-
Meson Brain to an atomic vector plotter suspended in a strong
Brownian Motion producer (say a nice hot cup of tea) were of
course well understood - and such generators were often used to
break the ice at parties by making all the molecules in the
hostess's undergarments leap simultaneously one foot to the left,
in accordance with the Theory of Indeterminacy.

Many respectable physicists said that they weren't going to stand
for this - partly because it was a debasement of science, but
mostly because they didn't get invited to those sort of parties.

Another thing they couldn't stand was the perpetual failure they
encountered in trying to construct a machine which could generate
the infinite improbability field needed to flip a spaceship
across the mind-paralysing distances between the furthest stars,
and in the end they grumpily announced that such a machine was
virtually impossible.

Then, one day, a student who had been left to sweep up the lab
after a particularly unsuccessful party found himself reasoning
this way:

If, he thought to himself, such a machine is a virtual
impossibility, then it must logically be a finite improbability.
So all I have to do in order to make one is to work out exactly
how improbable it is, feed that figure into the finite
improbability generator, give it a fresh cup of really hot tea
... and turn it on!

He did this, and was rather startled to discover that he had
managed to create the long sought after golden Infinite
Improbability generator out of thin air.

It startled him even more when just after he was awarded the
Galactic Institute's Prize for Extreme Cleverness he got lynched
by a rampaging mob of respectable physicists who had finally
realized that the one thing they really couldn't stand was a
smartass.

--

Off-Topic: Slashdot Celebrity Deathmatch #1

[Green Monkey]

SLASHDOT CELEBRITY DEATHMATCH No. 1: Tux vs. the BSD daemon

Announcer: Good evening and welcome to another exciting round of Slashdot Celebrity Deathmatch. We've got quite an exciting matchup for you tonight. In the left corner is our plucky but not-quite-GPL challenger, the BSD daemon!

(The BSD daemon strikes a pose for the crowd. The crowd cheers.)

Announcer: And in the right corner we have the most electrifying name in open source entertainment... the one, the only, TUX THE PENGUIN!

(Silence)

Announcer: ...but what's this? It seems that Tux isn't even in the ring.

BSD Daemon: There's no one to fight here!

(The crowd gasps)

Announcer: This is highly peculiar. If Tux does not arrive within the next five minutes, he'll have to forfeit the match.

BSD Daemon: And then we'll pour hot grits down his pants!

(Tux finally enters the stadium, running. He's carrying a briefcase and a cell phone.)

Tux: Hi, I just got back from posing for my new Linux Business icon. Sorry I'm late.

BSD Daemon: Hey, what's with that? How come there's no BSD Business icon? LINUX BIAS!

Tux: BSD sucks!

BSD Daemon: No, Linux sucks!

Tux: I said it first! By the way, the color scheme on your Slashdot section is really ugly.

BSD Daemon: When we last met, you were the master and I was the apprentice. Now, the circle is complete. (his pitchfork lights up)

Tux: (strikes martial arts pose) There can be only one!

BSD Daemon: Ha! You don't have a chance against the power of my Naked And Petrified Ray!

Tux: (rolls eyes) I don't even wear clothes. I'm already naked. Tee hee.

BSD Daemon: No, you're wearing that tie.

Tux: (looks down at his tie) Oops, so I am. (He pulls the tie off) Let's get ready to rumble!

BSD Daemon: Can you smell what the daemon's cookin'?

Tux: Na na na na na na. (starts putting mousse on his hair)

BSD Daemon: What the hell are you doing?

(Tux pulls his hair feathers up to form spikes)

Tux: SUPAAAA HAAAADO! (He starts glowing and flies into the air)

Announcer: Wow, it's Super Saiyajin Tux!

Tux: I'll send you to /dev/null! Super Ultimate Reverse Neo Cross Dimension Magical Karma Blast!

(Tux starts charging up a huge karma energy beam)

Announcer: Uh-oh, this could be trouble for the daemon!

BSD Daemon: Take this! (He hurls a huge tarball at Tux and connects. The tar gets all over Tux's feathers, preventing Tux from flying.)

(Tux falls to the mat)

Announcer: Ouch! What a fall!

BSD Daemon: Code freeze! (BSD Daemon throws a ball of ice at Tux and freezes him in place)

Announcer: Oh! It looks like Tux has been frozen by the BSD daemon's Code Freeze spell!

BSD Daemon: I've got you now, penguin!

(Suddenly, the SuSE chameleon runs out of the crowd and jumps into the ring)

Announcer: Here comes the SuSE chameleon! Tag team!

BSD Daemon: Hey! That's cheating!

(The SuSE chameleon flicks his tongue out at the daemon's pitchfork, catches it, and pulls it out of the daemon's hands)

SuSE Chameleon: Gotcha!

BSD Daemon: Arrrgh! All, right, fine, I'll fight you without my pitchfork! All I need is my patented Drunken Daemon Kung Fu. I learned it from a NINJA! He ate pancakes, too.

Crowd: Gasp! He patented it!

(A horde of angry /. readers rushes into the ring and starts beating on the daemon.)

Announcer: What a surprise! An angry mob is attempting to tear the daemon from limb to limb! We certainly don't condone this kind of senseless violence, but I just can't stop thinking about what it will do for our ratings!

(While the BSD daemon is being attacked, the SuSE chameleon puts on the Mandrake magician hat and waves the wand)

Crowd: Plunk your magic twanger, SuSEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!

SuSE Chameleon: Release code! (he bops Tux on the head with the wand)

(Tux comes out of stasis and starts charging up his karma blast again)

(Meanwhile, BSD is still being attacked by the /. readers)

BSD Daemon: Look! It's Jon Katz! (points randomlyinto the spectators)

Angry Mob: Let's lynch him! (they run out of the ring and go looking for Katz)

BSD Daemon: C'mon, I'll fight both of you at once.

Tux: Eat my tie! (he fires his wave of karma energy at BSD. BSD gets moderated down to the mat.)

Announcer: Wow! It looks like Tux moderated the daemon all the way down to -3! What a move!

Tux: Suck it down! (TM ION Storm)

Announcer: That's it for today, folks, but stay tuned next week for Mozilla vs. Mecha-Go!Zilla. Don't miss it!

Its only noise until you understand it.

[PureFiction]

I myself have decoded the message. Its an encrypted communication from the creator of this universe. It is encryptred using some kind of powerful subquantum interaction propagation as the cypher, wuite interesting, id detail it in the column but id run out of room.

But anyway, it says:
'The Answer is 42'.

So, looks like the guide was right after all.

Course, thats 42 different base harmonics for the superstrings composing our usinverse, but hey, 42 is 42.

As for other universes, or course they exists. Different harmonics and frequencies of the strings, which are really just the constraints on the formation of matter, lead to differnt types of large matter, like quarks and atoms and such.. most fo the harmonics lead to either gaseus type homogenous universes devoid of anything interesting, or tight big bang type singularities.. but on occasion, you will get some that SING.. just like our universe.. a perfect balance.. and capable of wild variety of endless porportions. Thus, the complexity nescessary for intelligence to form, and life to thrive is available in the substrate layer, with cprobability up to his work of organizing it all..

Anyway, thats for the curious.

Sysadmin Sadism

[Effugas]

I spent a good six hours (twelve total, but half of it was spent driving the full weight of my head into my keyboard) today trying to make C2Net's Stronghold and Allaire's JRun play nice together.

On the plus side, I am much more familiar with Apache now, even 1.3.x versions that mysteriously cost more money but don't have autoconf and won't do Dynamic Shared Objects right.

On the minus side, I was already screwed for time and this didn't help.

So, for the first time in my life, a grin came to my face as I saw a site thrashed by the Slashdot hordes:

http://www.newscientist.com/error-messages/jrund own.html

JRunDown?

Yeah, that's about right...I felt pretty damn jrunned down earlier today...

Yours Truly,

Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com

A grain of salt

[ruppel]

Take the New Sciantist with a grain of salt. They are more of a popular than a science magazine and I usually read their stories only if there is really nothing else to do around work. The reason for my caevat is that about half a year ago they published a "revolutionary theory" that explains the universe as a quantized entity without the dimension of time, which pops up simply as a result of calculating most propable trajectories for particles. As a physics major, and to anyone who has taken at least one course of it at university level, it was, however, quite obvious that nothing else than an elaborate coordonate transformation was performed which effectively "hid" the time dimension. Not only was this article just one gigantic slight of hand but also the coordinate transformation itself was done badly with a huge amount of unneccessary variables. Beware of the New Scientist, go instead to www.SciAm.com and check out their feature articles on the possibility of a trip to mars (I wonder why this hasn't been on /.) with a price tag that B.G. could spit up anytime...

Re:Is the universe a black hole?

[tomservo3000]

Well, if you want to figure out the radius yourself, it's defined as R=2GM/c^2, where R is the Schwarzschild Radius, G is the Gravitational Constant, M is the mass, and c is the speed of light (in this case squared)

Also, isn't the visible size of the universe something like 10^26 km (do I have the right units?)?

Anyway, I doubt that our universe is a black hole, simply because, well, what at the center of a black hole? A singularity. And what happens to all objects that are inside of the black hole? They head straight for the singularity. An object would have to travel superluminous speeds to overcome this difficulty. It APPEARS that the universe is expanding, and that most of the galaxies are moving away from each other, and I doubt that they are traveling faster than light (or else we probably wouldn't be able to see them).

Quantum mechanics is deterministic

[Epeeist]

"However, they also provide contradictory results. for instance, relativity is deterministic (1 set of conditions produces 1 outcome) whereas quantum mechanics only predicts the probablility of events."

Not so, quantum mechanics is determistic too. It is only when one makes a measurement that one gets into probabilities.

Re:Quantum mechanics is deterministic

[spiralx]

More accurately the evolution of the wave function is deterministic whereas the result of a measurement on a quantum system is probabilistic, with the probabilities given by the wave function.

Link to paper

[DGolden]

Here's further information on the this theory. I think it's quite good, myself. Note that New scientist barely scratches the surface of it:

www.physics.adelaide.ed u.au/ASGRG/ACGRG1/papers/cahill.ps

By the way, if one is after wild and wacky theories, as well as pretty damn good ones, you can do worse than check out the pre-print server on xxx.lanl.gov (Uk mirror at xxx.soton.ac.uk) This is one of the oldest sites on the net.

Re:srand(bigbang); universe = rand();

[phil reed]

Pseudorandom number sequences always have some period because the algorithms that generate them run on a finite amount of tape. If your computer has an infinite tape, it can generate pseudorandom sequeunces with no period.

I believe this is incorrect. Isn't really the case that pseudorandom sequences have a period because you absolutely cannot develop a random sequence with a deterministic process? It wouldn't matter how long the tape was.


...phil

This seems rather bogus

[HomeySmurf]

I am just a beginning graduate student in physics (and I am actually going to switch to CS), but this seems rather bogus. A few of the reasons I will elaborate on. Anyone who knows more about this, please feel free to post a rebuttal and correct my ignorance.

Gregory Chaitin ... made a suggestive analogy...Chaitin showed that a vast ocean of such truths surrounds the island of provable theorems. Any one of them might be stumbled on by accident--an equation might be accidentally discovered to have some property that cannot be derived from the axioms--but none of them can be proved. The chilling conclusion, wrote Chaitin in New Scientist, is that randomness is at the very heart of pure mathematics

I am a bit confused as to what is so chilling about the fact that mathematicians find theorems, essentially randomly. They use heurisitics and insights though. The search space for all provable theorems from a set of axioms can be very large. This all goes back to Newell and Simon's Logical Theorist at the dawn of AI. I also don't recall where Godel showed that the density of unprovable, but true theorems is greater than that of provably true theorems.

"This is where physics comes in," says Cahill. "The Universe is rich enough to be self-referencing--for instance, I'm aware of myself." This suggests that most of the everyday truths of physical reality, like most mathematical truths, have no explanation. According to Cahill and Klinger, that must be because reality is based on randomness. They believe randomness is more fundamental than physical objects.

Why the hell does that guy thinking he is self-aware imply randomness in the universe? Perhaps the article is missing the details, and I am too ignorant to fill in the details, but I think the logic here is a bit shaky.

This matrix equation is largely the child of educated guesswork, but there are good precedents for that. In 1932, for example, Paul Dirac guessed at a matrix equation for how electrons behave, and ended up predicting the existence of antimatter.

Now this is completely different. Dirac guessed at the form of an operator. However, this was very informed guess work, and he knew that at least one solution of the equation had to produce the electron. He knew the form of the equation, from principles of quantum mechanics, and was just guessing one term, but he a framework to check his result. It sounds like these guys are guessing not only the equation but also all the terms. Also, their equation seems to be nothing more than simple addition and inversion (actually this can be a problem for them because not all matrices are invertible)of matrices. However, since there is no link to any published work or any references to any, we have no idea.

The whole branching thing going up as r^2 looks like just the result of branching out in a plane, as you increase your distance from a center point in a plane isotropically (in all directions the same) of course your surface area goes up like r^2. The fact that some basic forces like gravity and electromagnetism follow a 1/r^2 (notice the inversion) actually happens to be related to the surface area of a sphere (which is 4pi*r^2 and the propagation of force carrying particles (or waves) move out on the surface of a sphere. It is important to note that the strong force and the weak force follow a different decay law, related to the short lifespan of the force carrying particles. Anyway, what I am trying to say is this seems to be a ridiculous analogy.

Wagers Benefitting Open Source, etc.

[Baldrson]

mattorb writes:

Notice that when Kip Thorne and Steven Hawking made their famous series of wagers, they were for things like a subscription to Playboy instead.)

I very much doubt either Kip Thorne or Steven Hawking would have said of the other, even in jest, something as ungentlemanly as:

fperez who has exactly one comment to his name on /. wrote:

As I said earlier, there's a non-vanishing probability that these guys aren't crackpots. If you ask me, it's comparable to that of a cracked eggshell reassembling itself: non-zero in the purest statistical sense, zero for all practical purposes.

Further, I am not a physicist, so to expect me to argue with a physicist is, itself, rather ridiculous. Nevertheless, I have done my own due diligence, made my own judgements and am willing to stand behind public statements under my own name.

Clearly a "subscription to Playboy" is not commensurate with the barely moderated vitriol of the indictments leveled by fperez, whoever he is. He has stepped beyond the bounds of gentlemanly conduct. What sort of wager would be the commensurate thing to offer given fperez's extreme certainty and barely moderated vitriolic indictments?

Re:Wagers Benefitting Open Source, etc.

[Baldrson]

I made a monetary wager with open source the beneficiary -- hardly a challenge to single combat. Whether the statements were "barely moderated vitriol" as I said, or "vitriolic" as you said I said is not to the point. The point is they were attacks on the character of the authors made virtually anonymous by the lack of verifiable associations with the string "fprerez".

However, you are correct that I place a high value on honor and believe single combat has an appropriate place in some human societies (not ones like the present politically driven civilization -- it would be akin to unleashing nuclear holocaust). Further, you are also correct that I would probably get along with our great great grandfathers better than you. Call me "old fashioned." My attitude toward single combat is pretty close to that available from ISBN 0-914752-18-9 "Valoric Fire and a Working Plan for Individual Sovereignty" by the Valorian Society near page 93.

But it is certainly interesting that among the more honorable societies remaining, such as the insular Japan and Finland, suicide of CEO's is common place -- and those societies do seem to contribute more than their fair share of technology to the world.

Among many other cultures perhaps Idea futures are a better option.