Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Universe Damaged By Observation?

Posted by Zonk on from the a-bit-deep-for-me dept.

ScentCone writes "The Telegraph covers a New Scientist report about two US cosmologists who suggest that, a la Schrodinger's possibly unhappy cat, the act of observing certain facets of our universe may have shortened its life . From the article: 'Prof Krauss says that the measurement of the light from supernovae in 1998, which provided evidence of dark energy, may have reset the decay of the void to zero — back to a point when the likelihood of its surviving was falling rapidly.'"

14 of 521 comments (clear)

  1. On first glance... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Upon the first reading of the summary, this sounds retarded.

    We don't send out EM to study the cosmos, we look at EM radiation that was already coming to us. What's the difference between harmlessly absorbing this radiation and measuring it with scientific instruments? The fact that we think about it?

    What am I missing here?

    1. Re:On first glance... by Jarjarthejedi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sorry, but you're the one missing the quantum physics. The GP posed a good question, does conscious observation differ from unconscious. The answer (so far as we know) is no, ergo quantum physics doesn't support this. Perhaps those are are going to be pedantic should first read up on the subject before telling others too?

      --
      There are two kinds of fool One says 'This is old therefore good' Another says 'This is new therefore better'- Dean Ing
    2. Re:On first glance... by ETEQ · · Score: 3, Insightful

      When you think about it that way, it does seem ridiculous... some interpretations of quantum mechanics (for example, the "Many Worlds" model, explained below) may help understand how this could possibly be. Indeed, this is why some people dislike the typical view of quantum mechanics (the "Copenhagen Model"), as there are experiments that show that this does in fact change things.

      The most straight-forward example (that doesn't involve murdering cats) is the double-slit experiment. You send a coherent beam of light (or electrons, it turns out, although that particular experiment is harder) at a screen with two slits in it, and observe what pattern appears on the wall behind it. With just one slit, a particular pattern (a diffraction pattern) appears. But with both slits in place, you see characteristic alternating bands of light and dark (an interference pattern). The weird part comes if you place a detector in the slit (that still allows the light to pass through), to try to see which slit each photon goes through. If you do that, the intereference pattern disappears! Somehow, the act of passively measuring the photon (which is just EM radiation under a different name) with scientific instruments changes the fundamental character of the interaction - that is, you "collapse the wave function."

      While measuring the whole universe does indeed sound much more ridiculous than a table-top experiment, the point is just that the axioms of quantum mechanics, when applied to the universe as a whole, give this result. Now, this could mean there's something wrong with the way we model dark energy... my money is on this one, seeing as how we actually have no consistent theory at all of how Dark Energy works. This article is based on 2 or 3 assumptions that have not at all been established as anything other than theories that might work (and there are far more theories that also work and don't tell you that we're destroying the universe).

      Alternatively, though, this could mean we don't understand quantum mechanics (in fact, we KNOW that it's wrong when it comes to gravity, for other reasons) or at least that the Copenhagen model is incorrect. An attractive (to some people) model is the "Many Worlds" model. According to this interpretation, instead of the universe reacting to our measurements, there are universes created every time a measurement is made for each of the possible outcomes of the measurement. So measuring the acceleration of Dark Energy, in this interpretation, doesn't change the universe directly - instead, it simply selects one out of many possible universes for YOU to inhabit. From that viewpoint, it makes much more sense how observation can affect things that you are not directly controlling - you just pick where you're doing your observation from, rather than changing the thing that you are observing.

    3. Re:On first glance... by ETEQ · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This may be physically true, but the theoretical framework of quantum mechanics does not require it. This is why this Dark Energy test is an interesting point to make. Most astrophysicists will probably agree that it sounds rather ridiculous, but the point is that the way Dark Energy is theoretically modeled by some people (e.g. a quantized scalar field, probably in a false vacuum), the result is as the article describes.

      That is to say, you need not postulate anything about how a photon interacts with a detector to still get the strange result in the double-slit experiment. Just say that the measurement collapses the wave function (e.g. fixes it to a definite eigenstate), and you get the results observed. So it isn't all in the details about the interaction - there's something going on that applies rather well in general to all quantum mechanical interactions.

      To sum up, "observation changest things" is not a "mystification," but rather a way to generalize what's going on and develop a theoretical framework (which, incidentally, is quantitatively by far the best verified theory science has ever created).

  2. That's stupid by Cyberax · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Universe doesn't care about conscious observers. For example, slight heating of the Earth atmosphere by the light from SN1988 _also_ counts as 'observation'.

    In fact, if an event changes macroscopic state of ANY physical object - it already counts as observation.

  3. consciousness does not... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...have a privileged place in the universe that would fundamentally change the universe.

    YOU ARE NOT SPECIAL.

  4. Our strange shy universe? by jamstar7 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Who would have thought some primitive hominids could be so destructive? To shorten the life of the universe just by looking at it?

    This new theory suggests two things I see off the top of my head:

    1. There is no other intelligent life in the universe, otherwise they would have killed the universe by looking at it.

    2. The theory is flawed and the universe is doing exactly what it's supposed to be doing. We just don't understand all the process yet.

    Personally, my money's on #2.

    --
    Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
  5. Re:The phrase by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I won't pretend to be an expert, but I don't see how passive observation using the naked eye is any more likely to screw up the universe than passive observation using any number of more scientific methods. If so, just by existing we would cause all the same problems.

    Either way, what it really depends on is whether we're inside or outside of the box. If we're outside the box we may cause the events to collapse by observation, but if we're inside the box, then we're fine...As long as the universe doesn't open the box, in which case we're either fine or dead or both.

    --
    ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
  6. Stupidest. Article. Evar by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You know, I recognize most of the words in the article as being from astrophysics and quantum mechanics, but when you put them all together, they don't make a lick of sense.

    --
    No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
  7. Re:So if I stop looking? by Zeinfeld · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Its utter bollocks.

    It isn't observation by a sentient being that causes the wave function to collapse, its interaction. The point being made by Schroedinger is that observation inescapably means interaction and thus affecting the quantity being measured.

    light from the supernova would be interacting with the earth regardless of whether scientists were there.

    --
    Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
    Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
  8. I don't get it. by niktemadur · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I mean, quantum physics states that to observe a particle's position or trajectory, you must first throw energy at it, thereby altering it. But in the case of the supernova stated in TFA's header, or any astronomical phenomena for that matter, all we are doing is passively gathering an infinitesimal amount of the radially emitted energy, which would have been absorbed by rocks in the ground if some high-tech gizmo wasn't there in an observatory instead.

    Do I alter the sun by squinting at it, and does it take eight minutes to upload my observation back into the sun's hard drive? It's the same thing, and it sounds rather silly.

    --
    Lil' Thindime, lilting a lacrimose lament, krashes the kwaint konfines of Kokonino Kounty
  9. unfounded by m2943 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There is not a shred of evidence that conscious observation has any effect on matter that differs from systems that evolve without being consciously evolved.

  10. Re:So if I stop looking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Is this a bit like how when more people are listening to the radio, they have to turn the transmitter power up to counteract all the extra people sucking the signal out of the air?

  11. Re:So if I stop looking? by AC-x · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think the following line from tfa sums it up nicely

    "just as a watched kettle never boils." i.e. doesn't change a thing