|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
And you thought global warming was bad... - 11/23/2007 5:26:49 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 6770
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
Mankind 'shortening the universe's life'
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. Over the past few years, cosmologists have taken this powerful theory of what happens at the level of subatomic particles and tried to extend it to understand the universe, since it began in the subatomic realm during the Big Bang.
Cosmologists claim by observing dark energy the universe has been nudged closer to its death
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.
They often illustrate their concerns about what the theory means with mind-boggling experiments, notably Schrodinger's cat in which, thanks to a fancy experimental set up, the moggy is both alive and dead until someone decides to look, when it either carries on living, or dies. That is, by one interpretation (by another, the universe splits into two, one with a live cat and one with a dead one.)
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 damaging allegations are made by Profs Lawrence Krauss of Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio, and James Dent of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, who suggest that by making this observation in 1998 we may have caused the cosmos to revert to an earlier state when it was more likely to end. "Incredible as it seems, our detection of the dark energy may have reduced the life-expectancy of the universe," Prof Krauss tells New Scientist.
Now that's a science stopper. Do with it what you will.
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: And you thought global warming was bad... - 11/23/2007 6:52:27 PM
|
|
|
unclemonkey
Posts: 1451
Joined: 5/14/2006
Status: offline
|
Original: Jhudquote:
”In a nutshell, the theory suggests that we change things simply by looking at them…”
Hmmmm. Brings Isaiah 14:14 to mind.
_____________________________
Visit my home church.
Also consider Life's Most Important Queston
|
|
|
|
|
RE: And you thought global warming was bad... - 11/23/2007 7:16:13 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 6770
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
Hmmmm. Brings Isaiah 14:14 to mind.
Yeah, there does seem to be a bit of hubris there.
Though it struck me how much it seemed like pagan superstion - "Don't look at the universe, it will bring a curse!'
Perhaps we are coming full circle.
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: And you thought global warming was bad... - 11/24/2007 9:25:19 AM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3170
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
Isn't this somewhat of a grandiose extension of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, whereby observing subatomic particles changes the essential characteristics of those observed particles? Could it be we really are in the center of the universe, not necessarily spatially, but rather existentially? I dunno - it seems like a little too much marrying physics with philosophy.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: And you thought global warming was bad... - 11/24/2007 9:57:26 AM
|
|
|
WormHeart
Posts: 289
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: Denmark - pride of Scandinavia
Status: offline
|
Hmm... I'm pretty sure the undecisive feature only applies to subatomatic particles, so the cat would in fact suffucate. Has this been reversed?
They *did* try some experiments to see if it could be scaled up to mesurable particles, but I dont know the outcome.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
Though it struck me how much it seemed like pagan superstion - "Don't look at the universe, it will bring a curse!'
Perhaps we are coming full circle.
?
Source?
WormHeart
|
|
|
|
|
RE: And you thought global warming was bad... - 11/25/2007 6:12:45 PM
|
|
|
Beckett
Posts: 197
Joined: 8/20/2007
Status: offline
|
Quantum physics are a tricky thing. The most notable quote I hear regarding the subject is "No one understands quantum physics - not even quantum physicists."
But this is an interesting article. Similiar to Schrodinger's cat, it has been shown that two particles can be in the same place at once. So why not something crazy like shortening (or lengthening) the lifespan of the Universe?
_____________________________
quote:
ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
“The theory of evolution is the theory of evolution” is a falsehood.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: And you thought global warming was bad... - 11/25/2007 7:41:45 PM
|
|
|
tony.nz
Posts: 367
Joined: 7/6/2005
Status: offline
|
I think these guys have been experimenting with too many hallucinogenic substances. They should definately be banned from owning or looking at any cats.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: And you thought global warming was bad... - 11/25/2007 8:36:39 PM
|
|
|
tony.nz
Posts: 367
Joined: 7/6/2005
Status: offline
|
OK, I was very concerned about this guy Schrodinger's cat. After researching it a little, I was very relieved to find this was only a "thought experiment", and no actual cat was harmed or not by looking at it or not. Furthermore, I found out that this Schrodinger guy wasn't quite as suspect as first thought, the experiment was only devised to illustrate "the absurdity of the standard interpretation of QM known as the "Copenhagen Interpretation" championed by Niels Bohr." Which he seems to have achieved. Just what he would have thought of Krauss and Dent is beyond me. Perhaps he would have suggested replacing the cat with two scientists, and actually trying the experiment. Perhaps someone has already done this, and the two guys in question may or may not be alive depending on what transpired from being observed at the faculty party on Friday night. Perhaps there are now two parrallel universes, one containing Krauss and Dent, and one not. Now, if we multiplied that by two, each containing Schrodinger's cat (or not), we would have four. We could then multiply that by two, each accounting for the possible outcomes from observing the football on Saturday night, we would have eight. Given the number of observed events during the course of history, and the multiplication effect, the number of parrallel universes is beyond comprehension. Now (thankfully), only half of these parrallel universes will be harmed by the observation of dark energy. However, that will be quickly rectified by the observation of one event with two possible outcomes, noting that the number of universes will then be doubled. So, can somebody tell me whether they have understood anything I have said? My observation of your reply will double the number of parrallel universes thereby rectifying the damage caused by us looking too closely at the universe. In the meantime i will assume that I am both sane and insane simutaneously until somebody actually reads this makes an observation accordingly.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: And you thought global warming was bad... - 11/25/2007 9:48:30 PM
|
|
|
Sport
Posts: 98
Joined: 11/14/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
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.
Now that's a science stopper. Do with it what you will.
This experiment validates what you just said. Check out this fascinating video.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=3_BzTMeV4HI
After watching this video, can someone explain to me how materialism could stand? If particles act differently depending on whether or not they are being observed, how could this not invalidate materialism?
< Message edited by Sport -- 11/25/2007 10:00:06 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: And you thought global warming was bad... - 11/26/2007 3:40:23 AM
|
|
|
BVZ
Posts: 487
Joined: 11/2/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sport
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
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.
Now that's a science stopper. Do with it what you will.
This experiment validates what you just said. Check out this fascinating video.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=3_BzTMeV4HI
After watching this video, can someone explain to me how materialism could stand? If particles act differently depending on whether or not they are being observed, how could this not invalidate materialism?
It's a bit complicated, and I won't pretend that I understand it 100%, but heres an easy way to understand:
It is impossible to measure something without changing that thing.
For instance, you cannot measure the pressure in a tire, without actually changing the pressure in the tire.
(This is extremely simplified...)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: And you thought global warming was bad... - 11/26/2007 9:24:13 AM
|
|
|
Sport
Posts: 98
Joined: 11/14/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: BVZ
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sport
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
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.
Now that's a science stopper. Do with it what you will.
This experiment validates what you just said. Check out this fascinating video.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=3_BzTMeV4HI
After watching this video, can someone explain to me how materialism could stand? If particles act differently depending on whether or not they are being observed, how could this not invalidate materialism?
It's a bit complicated, and I won't pretend that I understand it 100%, but heres an easy way to understand:
It is impossible to measure something without changing that thing.
For instance, you cannot measure the pressure in a tire, without actually changing the pressure in the tire.
(This is extremely simplified...)
well, I understand this concept, but why would simple observation cause these changes. Observation, as it seems to me, is non-physical to the object in question.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: And you thought global warming was bad... - 11/26/2007 1:01:28 PM
|
|
|
unclemonkey
Posts: 1451
Joined: 5/14/2006
Status: offline
|
ORIGINAL: Sport quote:
well, I understand this concept, but why would simple observation cause these changes. Observation, as it seems to me, is non-physical to the object in question.
Makes one wonder about the method of observation. Seems reminiscent of maggots “ spontaneously generating” in a slab of meat.
_____________________________
Visit my home church.
Also consider Life's Most Important Queston
|
|
|
|
|
RE: And you thought global warming was bad... - 11/26/2007 1:05:50 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 735
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sport
well, I understand this concept, but why would simple observation cause these changes. Observation, as it seems to me, is non-physical to the object in question.
Observing is decidedly not non-physical. The typical way that one 'observes' an electron (or whatever) is to bounce light (a photon) off of it. Since the photon itself carries energy and momentum, it's not so hard to see why this might have an effect on the observed particle. The quantum mechanical aspects do go a bit deeper than this, but not mysteriously so. In order to see many of these strange QM phenomena, you have to isolate your experimental system from all sorts of outside influences, otherwise your quantum system will be 'observed' by the light fixture and ruin the experiment. Observation in the sense usually used by physicists does not require an actual consciousness to perceive the measurement. The measurement itself (bouncing a photon off of the quantum system) counts as the observation. At the big colliders, so much data is generated that I doubt whether even 1% of the observations made by the detectors are ever perceived by a human being, other than in a statistical manner, generated by the data system.
As for the particular article under discussion, Krauss seems to be backing away from the more extravagant interpretation: "And Prof Krauss stresses that resetting the cosmic clock was not something we have done to the universe but rather what our cosmologically observations may imply about our knowledge of the cosmic clock: "I did not mean to imply causality - namely that our measurement itself reduces the lifetime of the universe - but rather that by being able to make our measurement we may thus conclude that we may not be in the late decay stage.""
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: And you thought global warming was bad... - 11/26/2007 1:35:38 PM
|
|
|
unclemonkey
Posts: 1451
Joined: 5/14/2006
Status: offline
|
original:essentialsaltesquote:
Observing is decidedly not non-physical. The typical way that one 'observes' an electron (or whatever) is to bounce light (a photon) off of it. Since the photon itself carries energy and momentum, it's not so hard to see why this might have an effect on the observed particle.
I guess wonders will never cease. I agree with you on this point.
_____________________________
Visit my home church.
Also consider Life's Most Important Queston
|
|
|
|
|
RE: And you thought global warming was bad... - 11/26/2007 3:14:13 PM
|
|
|
Sport
Posts: 98
Joined: 11/14/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sport
well, I understand this concept, but why would simple observation cause these changes. Observation, as it seems to me, is non-physical to the object in question.
Observing is decidedly not non-physical. The typical way that one 'observes' an electron (or whatever) is to bounce light (a photon) off of it. Since the photon itself carries energy and momentum, it's not so hard to see why this might have an effect on the observed particle. The quantum mechanical aspects do go a bit deeper than this, but not mysteriously so. In order to see many of these strange QM phenomena, you have to isolate your experimental system from all sorts of outside influences, otherwise your quantum system will be 'observed' by the light fixture and ruin the experiment. Observation in the sense usually used by physicists does not require an actual consciousness to perceive the measurement. The measurement itself (bouncing a photon off of the quantum system) counts as the observation. At the big colliders, so much data is generated that I doubt whether even 1% of the observations made by the detectors are ever perceived by a human being, other than in a statistical manner, generated by the data system.
As for the particular article under discussion, Krauss seems to be backing away from the more extravagant interpretation: "And Prof Krauss stresses that resetting the cosmic clock was not something we have done to the universe but rather what our cosmologically observations may imply about our knowledge of the cosmic clock: "I did not mean to imply causality - namely that our measurement itself reduces the lifetime of the universe - but rather that by being able to make our measurement we may thus conclude that we may not be in the late decay stage.""
ok...thanks for that explanation.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: And you thought global warming was bad... - 11/26/2007 6:37:51 PM
|
|
|
Beckett
Posts: 197
Joined: 8/20/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sport
This experiment validates what you just said. Check out this fascinating video.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=3_BzTMeV4HI
After watching this video, can someone explain to me how materialism could stand? If particles act differently depending on whether or not they are being observed, how could this not invalidate materialism?
This sounds like the beginning of a God of the Gaps argument, but I'm not sure which path you're going to take to get there. How are you proposing that the double-slit experiment invalidates materialism?
Also, that's the best explanation I've seen of the experiment. Thanks for the video.
_____________________________
quote:
ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
“The theory of evolution is the theory of evolution” is a falsehood.
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
