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.'"

7 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: 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. 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.
  4. 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
  5. 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/