Mankind destroys the Universe!!

[scotthm]

This certainly must be an ill timed April Fool's joke, but was found today on the 'net:

Forget about the threat that mankind poses to the Earth: our activities may be shortening the life of the universe too.
`
The startling claim is made by a pair of American cosmologists investigating the consequences for the cosmos of quantum theory, the most successful theory we have....
`
But there is an odd feature of the theory that philosophers and scientists still argue about. In a nutshell, the theory suggests that we change things simply by looking at them and theorists have puzzled over the implications for years....
`
New Scientist reports a worrying new variant as the cosmologists claim that astronomers may have accidentally nudged the universe closer to its death by observing dark energy, a mysterious anti gravity force which is thought to be speeding up the expansion of the cosmos.

The rest (if you dare) can be found here.

---------------

 

[philbob]

i couldnt even finish that

this is why some people should not be aloud to have children they go and try to scare everyone and contiune to set us back devlopmentally as a species

 

[FalTorPan]

Mankind destroys the universe? Burn, baby, burn!

 

[TerriO]

Okay, philbob, let's keep the insulting commentary to a minimum, please? All I ever ask is civil discussion, and insults like that aren't a part of it. Thank you.

Suddenly, I wish I knew Larry Krauss more than in passing so I could read the tone of his words better.

I can recall reading the "we change the universe by observing it" theory for years. In a way, they're right, because we understand more about the universe by observing it, but this? I have to say it feels like that theory taken to a rather extreme resolution. I can't say with any certainty that they're wrong, though.

 

[scotthm]

TerriO said:
I can recall reading the "we change the universe by observing it" theory for years.... I have to say it feels like that theory taken to a rather extreme resolution. I can't say with any certainty that they're wrong, though.

There's always some uncertainty when dealing with quantum mechanics, isn't there?

---------------

 

[philbob]

there was no insult there if i had insulted them there would of been some explitives and trash talking on there charachter and intelligence


and i know im a bad speller

 

[TerriO]

philbob said:
there was no insult there if i had insulted them there would of been some explitives and trash talking on there charachter and intelligence


and i know im a bad speller

And could you please explain to me how: "this is why some people should not be aloud to have children they go and try to scare everyone and contiune to set us back devlopmentally as a species"

isn't insulting?

I've got to cry foul at that one. Especially since it's totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand, disparaging to the authors of the article under discussion, and stating they should never have been allowed to be born.

 

[Arrqh]

TerriO said:
I can recall reading the "we change the universe by observing it" theory for years. In a way, they're right, because we understand more about the universe by observing it, but this? I have to say it feels like that theory taken to a rather extreme resolution. I can't say with any certainty that they're wrong, though.

This is essentially quantum mysticism which generally stems from the different in how a physicist defines and "observer" and how the average person defines an "observer"... when the average person is told that an observer changes the outcome they will usually think one means a conscious observer.

The "theory" isn't falsifiable though so it currently isn't science. It certainly is a compelling idea though because it allows us to consider ourself's important in a non-religious world view. But it also raises a lot of other questions which don't reflect favorably on it, such as "how conscious does something have to be to collapse a waveform?" and "was the entire universe an uncollapsed waveform waiting for us to come along and look at it?" in which case how did we even get here in the first place?

 

[Meredith]

Quick Ban the Space Telescopes!!!! Ban the Keck and Arecebo before it is too late.


This is nothing more than environmental Hysteria!


Of course if they are right what about aliens making observations?


Wouldn't the little green men be there first with wrecking the universe, let's attack the UFO's for they have brought our doom!! DOOM DOOM DOOM!!!


The Doom Song

 

[Christopher]

First of all, as Arrghman says, it's kind of solipsistic to assume that a conscious observer is necessary for quantum collapse to occur. It's actually interaction with any large ensemble of particles that causes it, at least according to decoherence theory. Scientists speak of "observation" because that's the particular kind of interaction they engage in and are able to report on, but it's just one example of interaction.

Second, as Meredith suggests, it's even more solipsistic to assume that, even if the observer effect did apply only to sentient observers, we would be the ones to set it off. That requires assuming that we're the first and only intelligent, tool-using species ever to evolve in the entire universe. Given that the observable universe alone contains trillions of galaxies with billions of stars each, the odds that we're the first beings ever to develop astronomy are, well, astronomically slim. So I'd say we're off the hook. If this could happen, then it's probably already been set off by some other species many millions of years ago.

 

[Iasius]

Christopher said:
First of all, as Arrghman says, it's kind of solipsistic to assume that a conscious observer is necessary for quantum collapse to occur. It's actually interaction with any large ensemble of particles that causes it, at least according to decoherence theory. Scientists speak of "observation" because that's the particular kind of interaction they engage in and are able to report on, but it's just one example of interaction.

Yep. The headline might as well read: "Earth destroys the Universe!!"

How can you be a professor, know about the quantum zeno effect* and not know the definition of an observer in quantum mechanics?


* I'm actually supposed to deliver a presentation about the quantum zeno effect in a few weeks. This will make a nice way to start it off.

 

[scotthm]

The whole thing seems to me a bit of sloppy 'science' writing. Take for example another quote from the story:

Our cosmos is now significantly lighter than scientists had thought after an analysis of the amount of light given out by galaxies concluded that some shone from lightweight electrons, not heavyweight atoms. In all, the new analysis suggests that the universe has lost about one fifth of its overall mass.

(emphasis added)

How many ignorant people will read this article in the paper and conclude that our universe is 'disappearing' because of astronomers?

---------------

 

[Christopher]

It's the new miracle weight-loss plan! Just get astronomers to point their telescopes at you!

 

[Unicron]

 

[Mallory]

Christopher said:
It's the new miracle weight-loss plan! Just get astronomers to point their telescopes at you!

God helps us all if Richard Simmons sees this!

Frankly, I'm not so gullible. It isn't real until I see the thirty minute Ron Popeil (Ronco) informercial.

Seriously though, this seems to be taking a theory to an absolute extreme. And even if they're right, who cares? It would still be occurring millions (or billions) of year in the future.

 

[Christopher]

^^It's not a theory, it's a hypothesis. In lay usage, a theory is an educated guess or conjecture, but in science, a theory is a systematic model of reality that explains the underlying mechanism behind an entire range of observed phenomena and experimental results, and that generates new predictions and hypotheses that can then be tested. A single theory produces many testable predictions and hypotheses, some of which may be proven true, others proven incorrect. In the case of quantum theory, it's produced countless predictions that have been conclusively proven over the past century, but our understanding of it is still incomplete enough that we sometimes derive hypotheses from it that turn out to be incorrect, showing that we still have a way to go before gaining a thorough understanding of this complex, all-encompassing theory.

 

[Mallory]

I stand corrected.

 

[Arrqh]

I posted this in the TNZ thread as well, but here's a very good and much less sensational article about this on Ars Technica: Click me!

 

[FordSVT]

Christopher said:
^^It's not a theory, it's a hypothesis. In lay usage, a theory is an educated guess or conjecture, but in science, a theory is a systematic model of reality that explains the underlying mechanism behind an entire range of observed phenomena and experimental results, and that generates new predictions and hypotheses that can then be tested. A single theory produces many testable predictions and hypotheses, some of which may be proven true, others proven incorrect. In the case of quantum theory, it's produced countless predictions that have been conclusively proven over the past century, but our understanding of it is still incomplete enough that we sometimes derive hypotheses from it that turn out to be incorrect, showing that we still have a way to go before gaining a thorough understanding of this complex, all-encompassing theory.

I'm going to save your post, it's a perfect way to describe a theory during those crazy evolution arguments we love to get into.

And I must say that, crazy hypothesis or not, quantum physics certainly is a playground for the mind. Multiverses, branes, strings, singularities. Even the possibility that stuff like this could be possible blows the mind. Hell, the stuff we DO know about quantum mechanics blows my mind!

 

[Jarvis]

Surely the problem with the analogy to Schrödinger's cat is that the act of observing the cat doesn't actually lead to the universes demise because in a sum over all possibilities system the cat may or may not be either in the box, up a tree or anyone of an infinite number of locations and in any state of being just as the observer may also be.

Hey the universe ceased to exist last Tuesday it's just that we haven't reached there yet.