Cover Image: March 2008 Scientific American Magazine See Inside

Looking Both Ways

The past and the future can be equally hard to interpret















Share on Tumblr

Predicting the future is usually a sucker’s bet. Conversely, making bets might be an unusually sound way of predicting the future. That prem­ise lies behind the plethora of futures markets that have sprung up in recent years, inspired by the success of commodities markets at determining the best time to go long on soybeans. Some political observers have begun to trust that if futures markets can anticipate the price of pork bellies, they should foresee the outcome of congressional races, too—possibly better than traditional polls can. Yet these markets are still far from infallible, so theoreticians continue trying to determine how to design smarter, more reliable markets. Senior writer Gary Stix writes about the efforts to turn price tickers into crystal balls.

When physicist Lawrence M. Krauss and cosmologist Robert J. Scherrer peered into the future—the fantastically distant future, to be sure—they recognized that any sentient beings of that time might be in the grip of an insoluble mystery. Today’s astronomers have been able to reconstruct how the universe arose by looking deep into space and finding telltale evidence of a big bang 13.5 billion years ago. The expansion and evolution of the universe are gradually erasing that evidence, however: a billion centuries from now, naive astronomers would see no reason to doubt that they lived in a small, empty, almost unchanging cosmos. Should we count ourselves privileged to live in an era when the facts are still accessible to us? Or should we ponder whether unsuspected truths about the origins of space and time are already lost to us, too?

Even when the facts relevant to a problem still exist, finding them amid the flotsam of confounding information and assembling them into a cogent argument can be forbiddingly tough. That challenge is at the heart of the story written by investigative reporter Carole Bass, “Solving a Massive Worker Health Puzzle”.

Since 2001 various authorities have been looking into a statistically unusual cluster of brain cancer cases among employees of a manufacturing plant in Connecticut. Determining whether those cancers had a shared industrial cause is a type of problem with which epidemiologists, industrial chemists and other specialists are increasingly tasked, because such answers are the basis for safety regulations, not to mention legal findings of culpability. As Bass’s account demonstrates, however, the scale of the problem—which involves a quarter of a million people experiencing unmeasured exposures to unidentified chemical and radiological agents over decades—can be overwhelming.

Sometimes better instruments can help scientists past obstacles; sometimes they can’t. In recent years the emerging technology of quantum computing has become a lodestone for the hopes of many people looking for solutions to problems in cryptanalysis and other fields that would be literally or effectively impossible for normal computers. As a result, quantum computing has started to acquire a popular reputation as a nearly magical method for solving any conceivable problem. Nevertheless, it is not, as Scott Aaronson describes in “The Limits of Quantum Computing”. Some answers will stay beyond easy reach for a long time to come; that remains a safe bet. 



This article was originally published with the title Looking Both Ways.



Subscribe     Buy This Issue

Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.

1 Comments

Add Comment
View
  1. 1. chamankaul 05:23 AM 3/17/08

    Future will certainly remain uncertain. Predicting it at best will follow fractal chaos. You know and know not. Past is a description of regrets of gaps of what is not replayable in its deduced reconstruction. That is the problem the thinking and conscious humans have. To look before and after  and with Keats "pine for what is not". His handicap is to have arrived at the scene in the mid-phase of cosmic evolution.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Leave this field empty

Add a Comment

You must sign in or register as a ScientificAmerican.com member to submit a comment.
Click one of the buttons below to register using an existing Social Account.

More from Scientific American

See what we're tweeting about

Scientific American Editors

More »

Free Newsletters


Get the best from Scientific American in your inbox

Solve Innovation Challenges

Powered By: Innocentive

  SA Digital
  SA Digital

Science Jobs of the Week

Email this Article

Looking Both Ways: Scientific American Magazine

X
Scientific American Magazine

Subscribe Today

Save 66% off the cover price and get a free gift!

Learn More >>

X

Please Log In

Forgot: Password

X

Account Linking

Welcome, . Do you have an existing ScientificAmerican.com account?

Yes, please link my existing account with for quick, secure access.



Forgot Password?

No, I would like to create a new account with my profile information.

Create Account
X

Report Abuse

Are you sure?

X

Institutional Access

It has been identified that the institution you are trying to access this article from has institutional site license access to Scientific American on nature.com. To access this article in its entirety through site license access, click below.

Site license access
X

Error

X

Share this Article

X