Hubble Too Sharp? Quantum Theory Flaws?

sckienle writes "Space.com has an article suggesting that the Hubble space telescope's pictures are too sharp. At least they are based on current interpretations of quantum theory. When viewing distant objects, 'the expected quantum effect is like a subtle version of the blurring caused by Earth's atmosphere, which makes stars twinkle.' But those effects do not seem to be present. The research will be published April 10 in the journal Astrophysical Research-Letters."

Comments

Re:Too Sharp?

[aziegler]

Again ... that's bad? It just means that the current *theory* needs work. And here I thought that the point of science was to actually *seek answers*.

-a

Re:Alright!

[MarvinMouse]

Okay...

1. A := modern interpretation of quantum theory, with time and space quantized.

2. A -> C, where c := space-time is quantum foam

3. C -> B, where B := Hubble telescope images should be blurry due to quantum foam.

4. O := Observations

O != B.

Therefore step 1,2,3 or 4 is incorrect. 4 is assumes to be correct, 3 is mathematically accurate from modern interpretations, 2 may be incorrect, but likely is not, since it follows very naturally from 1. Therefore, it is likely our initial assumption, A, in step 1, is the assumption in error.

(Just trying to be more mathematical about it. ^_^)

Now I trust that ...

[Snork Asaurus]

they checked with the Hubble folks to make sure that they hadn't applied some sort of (pseudo)sharpening techniques along with all the other processing (like false-coloring, et al) that they do. The article didn't say that they analyzed raw data.

Well-overstated claims in article

[siskbc]

In other words, this isn't going to affect non-relativistic quantum mechanics or even QED, except insofar as those theories are already incomplete or incorrect.

No kidding. My first reservation was reading about how the article "will be published." One of the things to always be leery of is research that is released to the media before published. And they've talked to massive numbers of pseudo-scientific journalists and websites. Second, it's being published in a "letters" journal. Not the highest standards, because they're not publishing a full article. Third, these claims are being put out by groups from places like the University of Alabama at Huntsville. I'm not saying great research CAN'T be done at such places...but combined with the way they've gone about publishing, it smacks of someone trying to drum up their own PR.

Now, as for the actual claims in the article, they're talking about how blurred these pictures should be, with reference to the Planck time, and invoked a quantum gravity argument. The existence of a quantum gravity has never been proven rigorously, and has been a bane to the efforts of unifying the four major forces for years. So, if anything, they've managed to poke holes in a theory that everyone admits is thoroughly "under construction."

The next problem is that the entire fundamental point of their study assumes that uncertainties in time propogate over distance, and that the uncertainty in wavelength can be interpreted as a superposition of waves of complete certainty. This is a sketchy and controversial means of implementing this. Had they stopped before they got here, and said that their results imply that maybe this big assumption is dead wrong, they would have made a significant contribution.

However, they don't stop there. They then go on to discuss potential implications including an infinitely dense universe at the time of the big bang, which assumes that both their results as well as the flawed theories they invoke are correct, but that the collected works on theoretical physics are wrong. It's happened before, but not usually. It's a massive reach, but they include it because doing so is likely to get them more exposure than their more legitimate claims. And have no doubt, this will gather much more attention in the "Scientific American" crowd of science-groupies than it will in academia.

My problem with this isn't that they didn't do a cool experiment - they did. The problem is that they extended its impact far too wide. When confronted with their evidence that invalidates one of two theories, they choose to interpret it as invalidating the more established theory, as that gets them more press. Their research was fine on its own, but it seems they are more interested in publicity. Reminds me of a group in Utah about 15 years ago...

Re:Well-overstated claims in article

[Idarubicin]

Third, these claims are being put out by groups from places like the University of Alabama at Huntsville.

Actually, the group on which the article writer focuses works out of the Astrophysical Observatory of Arcetri and the Max Planck Institute for Astronomy. I'm not an expert in cosmology, and I don't know about the Astrophysical Observatory of Arcetri--but I do know that in general the Max Planck Institute is a pretty respectable name in physics. The article did note that related analyses performed at U of A at Huntsville have generated similar results...and that's a good thing.

You're quite right that they have made some big leaps in some of their reasoning (apparently; as you say, their letter hasn't actually been distributed yet). Since it is just a letter, perhaps some fanciful thinking is permissible...what harm is there in a little imagination? Yes, it smacks of self-promotion--but we should consider that it may not be entirely the fault of the researchers.

In their defense, in the linked article at Space.com, I caught a couple of terms being misused/abused in ways that you don't usually see from astrophysicists. We might have a science writer in a little over his head, looking to write an article sensational enough to appeal to laypeople. I know it happens to medical researchers all the time--dig out some old newspapers, and you'll be pleased to note we've cured cancer on a roughly monthly basis over the last ten years. Looking at the actual quotations from the reseachers in the article (there are only two), they don't seem that sensational.

It could even be that the researchers didn't want a lot of press coverage, but were victims of overzealous PR flunkies. I'm prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt until I actually get to see their publication.