Slashdot Mirror


The Universe Damaged By Observation?

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.'"

17 of 521 comments (clear)

  1. Re:If that is true... by HeavensBlade23 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Quick, someone mod him down before he shortens all of our lives!

  2. 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).

  3. 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.

  4. Re:If that is true... by Carthag · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm doing my share of shortening the life of the universe by increasing entropy. Right now I'm rubbing my hands together, both in glee, and to create excess heat. Muahahaha.

  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. X-Bender: Bender's a genius! by JensenDied · · Score: 5, Funny

    Track Announcer: And the winner is ... Number 3, in a quantum finish.
    Farnsworth: No fair! You changed the outcome by measuring it!

    --

    09:F9:11:02 - 9D:74:E3:5B - D8:41:56:C5 - 63:56:88:C0

  7. Of course! by Jethro · · Score: 5, Funny

    That explains a lot! Everytime I stare directly into a light source, the light goes away for a while! The stronger or more "pure" the light, the longer it is affected by me staring at it.

    Why, a few years ago I stared directly into a laser pointer, and to this day whenever I point it back into that eye, it generates NO LIGHT AT ALL.

    --


    In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is kinky.
  8. 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
  9. Re:If that is true... by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Funny

    Do I also shorten the life of this post by reading it?

    Don't worry, dupes are on the way...

    Let's hope God is a slashdot editor.

  10. Re:If that is true... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Cut it out, you madman!

  11. Copenhagen interpretation by digitalderbs · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This idea is based on the assumption of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics -- the idea that wave-functions exist as superpositions of multiple states and that they're collapsed into discrete states upon observation. First, is an observer only a human being, an animate object or inanimate object? Seems to me that many inanimate systems self-propagate themselves through time, relying on the continuous collapse of wave functions -- without people looking at them. Second, in my mind the Copenhagen interpretation is impossible to prove because you can never really know what the wavefunction is doing before the observation, and this is why it's an interpretation. In this case, you couldn't know if the universe could actually be older than than it is, without our observation. At least this is my view as a statistical quantum mechanicist.

  12. 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/
  13. Re:If that is true... by ScentCone · · Score: 5, Funny

    Do I also shorten the life of this post by reading it?

    Dammit! I already made that joke when I submitted the article, and Zonk edited it out of my summary. I thought the whole thing was just silly, but it was such a good opportunity to be a smartass that I submitted it anyway. And look what happens. YOU get all the comedic karma. Perhaps the humor couldn't manifest itself until AFTER the submission had been observed? My original headline was "Mankind damages universe by looking at it," which was far more fun. Oh well.

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  14. Re:So if I stop looking? by Torvaun · · Score: 5, Funny

    Philosophy, Science, and Oedipus walk into a bar...

    --
    I see your informative link, and raise you a pithy comment.
  15. Re:If that is true... by risk+one · · Score: 5, Funny

    Thus extending the life of the universe. Keep it up!