Maybe you did not read close enough, so I will quote some more:
Right, according to General Relativity. Again incomplete when describing at or below the Planck scale. Not to mention once you get into the quantum world there are at least 12 different interpretations.
At the Planck scale, there was a question as to whether standard quantum field theories would still be valid. There was never any question that General Relativity would still be valid, as it was already known that it must be if General Relativity is correct. The Wikipedia passages that you quote say nothing about General Relativity being invalid at the Planck scale, and if they had then they would be erroneous.
As Charles W. Misner, Kip S. Thorne and John Archibald Wheeler wrote in their book Gravitation (1973), which is the most highly respected textbook on General Relativity, p. 934:
""
In fact, it was the proof of Penrose's (1965b) pioneering theorem on singularities that gave rise to global techniques for studying spacetime.
...
That singularities are very general phenomena, and cannot be wished away, has been known since 1965, thanks to the theorems on singularities proved by Penrose, Hawking, and Geroch. [For a full list of references, see Hawking and Penrose (1969) or Hawking and Ellis (1973).]
""
I will just address quantum mechanics and that alone will prove my point.
Quantum mechanics while it is confirmed by experiments, when applied to a cosmological framework it all depends on how someone interprets it. As I said before there are at least 12 different interpretations. See here:
-Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics
The Omega Point cosmology itself isn't dependent upon any particular intepretation of quantum mechanics.
But in fact, there exists only one interpretation of quantum mechanics, and that is the many-worlds interpretation. All other so-called "interpretations" either make no attempt to actually explain quantum phenomena (such as the Statistical interpretation), or they are merely the many-worlds interpretation in denial (such as David Bohm's pilot-wave interpretation).
Anything that acts on reality is real and exists. Quite strange then that quantum phenomena behave exactly as if the other particles in the multiverse exist if in fact they don't exist. If the actual physical nature of the "wave functions" and "pilot waves" are not the other particles in the multiverse, then new physical entities with their own peculiar physics are being invoked: for if these aren't the other particles in the multiverse interacting with the particles in this universe, then we will do well to ask what is their actual physical nature? Pinball flippers, bumpers and ramps? What is their actual physical form, and why do they behave exactly as if the other particles in the multiverse exist?
Furthermore, all wave phenomena are nothing more than particle phenomena: there is no particle-wave duality. A wave is simply a collection of particles interacting with each other. It is the particles that actually exist; the wave is simply an action by particles interacting with each other. We see this with waves through, e.g., liquids: the individual molecules are jostled about via interacting with the other molecules. Likewise, a single photon in this universe behaves as a wave because it's interacting with the ocean of its parallel photons in the multiverse.
See also the leading quantum physicist in the world, Prof. David Deutsch (inventor of the quantum computer, being the first person to mathematically describe the workings of such a device), "Comment on Lockwood", British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 47, No. 2 (June 1996), pp. 222-228; also released as "Comment on '"Many Minds" Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics by Michael Lockwood'", 1996.
http://web.archive.org/web/20070925.../people/david/Articles/CommentOnLockwood.html ,
http://www.webcitation.org/5wajACpeI
Quantum mechanics is strictly deterministic across the multiverse. If one does away with causation then one also does away with the possibility of explanation, as all explanation is predicated on explicating cause-and-effect relationships. So if by "interpretation" it is meant explanation, then Prof. Deutsch's point in his above paper about there actually only being one known interpretation of quantum mechanics is again found to be inescapable.
And as Prof. Deutsch writes in The Fabric of Reality: The Science of Parallel Universes--and Its Implications (London: Allen Lane The Penguin Press, 1997), Chapter 9: "Quantum Computers", pg. 217:
""
The argument of Chapter 2, applied to *any* interference phenomenon destroys the classical idea that there is only one universe. Logically, the possibility of complex quantum computations adds nothing to a case that is already unanswerable. But it does add psychological impact. With Shor's algorithm, the argument has been writ very large. To those who still cling to a single-universe world view, I issue this challenge: *explain how Shor's algorithm works*. I do not merely mean predict that it will work, which is merely a matter of solving a few uncontroversial equations. I mean provide an explanation. When Shor's algorithm has factorized a number, using 10^500 or so times the computational resources that can be seen to be present, where was that number factorized? There are only about 10^80 atoms in the entire visible universe. So if the visible universe were the extent of physical reality, physical reality would not even remotely contain the resources required to factorize such a large number. Who did factorize it, then? How, and where, was the computation performed?
""
See also the below paper by Prof. Tipler:
Frank J. Tipler, "Testing Many-Worlds Quantum Theory By Measuring Pattern Convergence Rates", arXiv:0809.4422, September 25, 2008.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0809.4422
And most leading physicists do accept the Many-Worlds Interpretation as true. The political scientist L. David Raub conducted a poll of 72 leading quantum cosmologists and other quantum field theorists regarding their view on the truth of the Many-Worlds Interpretation. The possible answers were: (1) "Yes, I think the MWI is true"; (2) "No, I don't accept the MWI"; (3) "Maybe it's true, but I'm not yet convinced"; and (4) "I have no opinion one way or the other". The results of the poll were: 58% said yes; 18% said no; 13% said maybe; and 11% said no opinion. In the "yes" category were Stephen Hawking, Richard Feynman, and Murray Gell-Mann, while the "no" answers included Roger Penrose.
I think I have already addressed this, see above.
Your right it was not a technical paper, it was just a simple review. Thats because everybody (at least I thought) in the scientific community knows that, as Krauss said:
If you would like I can give you sources and references to support his statements.
There are no sources that you could cite in support of that statement, since it's clear from Prof. Krauss's review that he is unaware of the fact that Prof. Tipler published the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE) in Reports on Progress in Physics. Either that, or Krauss was being dishonest in not mentioning the paper.
Prof. Krauss isn't saying in his review that Prof. Tipler has published this paper which presents a proposed quantum gravity TOE, but that Krauss disagrees with it. Rather, Krauss is saying that Tipler's work on the quantum gravity TOE doesn't even exist. The best possible thing that could be said for Krauss's review is that it is appallingly sloppy, to the point of being ethically troubling (for the reason that Krauss ought to have looked at the footnotes of the book he is reviewing and saw Tipler's paper on this matter). The other option is that Krauss knew about this paper but was being intentionally dishonest.
Will address below.
Notice this book was written before the Universe was observed to be flat.
Some have suggested that the universe's current acceleration of its expansion obviates the universe collapsing (and therefore obviates the Omega Point). But as Profs. Lawrence M. Krauss and Michael S. Turner point out in "Geometry and Destiny" (General Relativity and Gravitation, Vol. 31, No. 10 [October 1999], pp. 1453-1459; also at arXiv:astro-ph/9904020, April 1, 1999
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9904020 ), there is no set of cosmological observations which can tell us whether the universe will expand forever or eventually collapse.
The reason for that is because that is dependant on the actions of intelligent life. The known laws of physics provide the mechanism for the universe's collapse. As required by the Standard Model, the net baryon number was created in the early universe by baryogenesis via electroweak quantum tunneling. This necessarily forces the Higgs field to be in a vacuum state that is not its absolute vacuum, which is the cause of the positive cosmological constant. But if the baryons in the universe were to be annihilated by the inverse of baryogenesis, again via electroweak quantum tunneling (which is allowed in the Standard Model, as baryon number minus lepton number [B - L] is conserved), then this would force the Higgs field toward its absolute vacuum, cancelling the positive cosmological constant and thereby forcing the universe to collapse. Moreover, this process would provide the ideal form of energy resource and rocket propulsion during the colonization phase of the universe.
I care about physics not theology.
Obviously you care about theology, as you're the one who brought up Prof. David Deutsch's theological issues with the Omega Point cosmology. Yet unlike Prof. Tipler, Deutsch is not an expert in theology. Nor is Deutsch one of the world's leading theologians, which Prof. Wolfhart Pannenberg is.
The leading quantum physicist in the world, Prof. David Deutsch (inventor of the quantum computer, being the first person to mathematically describe the workings of such a device, and winner of the Institute of Physics' 1998 Paul Dirac Medal and Prize for his work), endorses the physics of the Omega Point cosmology in his book The Fabric of Reality (1997). For that, see:
David Deutsch, extracts from Chapter 14: "The Ends of the Universe" of The Fabric of Reality: The Science of Parallel Universes--and Its Implications (London: Allen Lane The Penguin Press, 1997); with additional comments by Frank J. Tipler.
http://theophysics.chimehost.net/deutsch-ends-of-the-universe.html
How do they violate the known laws of physics?
One motivation for such new laws of physics which have no experimental support whatsoever is an attempt to avoid singularities, which are unavoidable in General Relativity (per the Penrose-Hawking Singularity Theorems).
Besides I thought Omega Point cosmology was supposed to have a closed universe, since it is thought to be flat, where does that leave Omega Point Cosmology?
-NASA.gov/shape of the universe
Some have suggested that the universe's current acceleration of its expansion obviates the universe collapsing (and therefore obviates the Omega Point). But as Profs. Lawrence M. Krauss and Michael S. Turner point out in "Geometry and Destiny" (General Relativity and Gravitation, Vol. 31, No. 10 [October 1999], pp. 1453-1459; also at arXiv:astro-ph/9904020, April 1, 1999
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9904020 ), there is no set of cosmological observations which can tell us whether the universe will expand forever or eventually collapse.
The reason for that is because that is dependant on the actions of intelligent life. The known laws of physics provide the mechanism for the universe's collapse. As required by the Standard Model, the net baryon number was created in the early universe by baryogenesis via electroweak quantum tunneling. This necessarily forces the Higgs field to be in a vacuum state that is not its absolute vacuum, which is the cause of the positive cosmological constant. But if the baryons in the universe were to be annihilated by the inverse of baryogenesis, again via electroweak quantum tunneling (which is allowed in the Standard Model, as baryon number minus lepton number [B - L] is conserved), then this would force the Higgs field toward its absolute vacuum, cancelling the positive cosmological constant and thereby forcing the universe to collapse. Moreover, this process would provide the ideal form of energy resource and rocket propulsion during the colonization phase of the universe.