And you thought global warming was bad... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins



Message

Jhud -> And you thought global warming was bad... (11/23/2007 5:26:49 PM)

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.



unclemonkey -> RE: And you thought global warming was bad... (11/23/2007 6:52:27 PM)

Original: Jhud
quote:

”In a nutshell, the theory suggests that we change things simply by looking at them…”

Hmmmm. Brings Isaiah 14:14 to mind.



Jhud -> RE: And you thought global warming was bad... (11/23/2007 7:16:13 PM)

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.



drmark -> RE: And you thought global warming was bad... (11/24/2007 9:25:19 AM)

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.



WormHeart -> RE: And you thought global warming was bad... (11/24/2007 9:57:26 AM)

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



Beckett -> RE: And you thought global warming was bad... (11/25/2007 6:12:45 PM)

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?



tony.nz -> RE: And you thought global warming was bad... (11/25/2007 7:41:45 PM)

I think these guys have been experimenting with too many hallucinogenic substances. They should definately be banned from owning or looking at any cats.



tony.nz -> RE: And you thought global warming was bad... (11/25/2007 8:36:39 PM)

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.



Sport -> RE: And you thought global warming was bad... (11/25/2007 9:48:30 PM)

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?



BVZ -> RE: And you thought global warming was bad... (11/26/2007 3:40:23 AM)

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...)



Sport -> RE: And you thought global warming was bad... (11/26/2007 9:24:13 AM)

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.



unclemonkey -> RE: And you thought global warming was bad... (11/26/2007 1:01:28 PM)

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.



essentialsaltes -> RE: And you thought global warming was bad... (11/26/2007 1:05:50 PM)

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.""



unclemonkey -> RE: And you thought global warming was bad... (11/26/2007 1:35:38 PM)

original:essentialsaltes
quote:

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.



Sport -> RE: And you thought global warming was bad... (11/26/2007 3:14:13 PM)

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.



Beckett -> RE: And you thought global warming was bad... (11/26/2007 6:37:51 PM)

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.



rjdodd -> RE: And you thought global warming was bad... (4/29/2008 1:41:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Beckett
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."

Unfortunately this is very true - not even a majority of quantum physicists agree on a particular interpretation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tony.nz
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.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. Perhaps not equal probability of being right and wrong though.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tony.nz
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.

The quantum suicide experiment... Which is to the many worlds interpretation what Schrodinger's cat is to the Copenhagen interpretation.

But then quantum mechanics does not have to reflect actual reality in order to be a useful model of perceived reality - just ask von Neumann.

[&:]



Page: [1]



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI