You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
-Signs, Portents, and the Weather-
Mankind 'shortening the universe's life'
2007-11-23
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.

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 boggling mind 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 interpetation (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.
AlGore to sell "Dark Energy Credits" in 5...4....3..

what complete and utter tripe. GW hysteria seems to need ever-darker, ever-nearer bigger and badder disasters. These two idiots may have jumped to the head of the pack. I blame W for damaging the universe. Hillary would stop it
Posted by:Frank G

#37  Due to the Robertson-Schrodinger relation, the authors can not accurately measure the degree to which observation of the universal state affects same. Therefore, this argument can not proceed beyond the hypothetical. It lies in the realm of philosophy, not physics.
Posted by: Ulomoque Protector of the Hatfields2940   2007-11-23 23:00  

#36  "Mankind 'shortening the universe's life'"

Oh, ferchrissakes....

These clowns are in-farking-sane. >:-(
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut   2007-11-23 21:13  

#35  Fun link, and grist for the mill.

http://thepeoplescube.com/red/viewtopic.php?t=1570

And of course, for those who didn't know, this argument was settled more than 250 years ago.

http://www.samueljohnson.com/refutati.html
Posted by: OregonGuy   2007-11-23 19:46  

#34  OK, folks, with thanks to Angie, here is the poop scoop on Creation:

The world was made in six days
And finished on the seventh
According to the contract
It should have been the eleventh
But the painters wouldn't paint
And the workers wouldn't work
So the quickest thing to do
Was to fill it up with dirt
Posted by: Alaska Paul   2007-11-23 19:20  

#33  Thank goodness for Angie. I feel safer now.
Posted by: Thomas Woof   2007-11-23 18:57  

#32  Procopius2k, not the dark matter (a figment of someone runaway imagination) but aether is now called vacuum. Yea, they thought of vacuum as medium devoid of anything, but no such a thing. Aether is so 1890s, so they say vacuum and mean aether.
Posted by: twobyfour   2007-11-23 18:31  

#31  All the 'dark matter' talk [ain't that a opening line to play with] strikes me as just a modernized version of aether.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2007-11-23 18:00  

#30   Marcus Chown, who evidently missed his true calling as a *nix system administrator.

Ouch Angie! LOL
Posted by: lotp   2007-11-23 17:37  

#29  I will point out that you're reading an interpretation of an interpretation of a science paper, made by a person whose math scores were such that he was forced to become a journalist. As long as we're generalizing wildly.

Actual paper (PDF) is here. Download options on the right. It's only four pages. It's been a long time since I looked at this stuff, but basically it's talking about excited vacuum energy states. You'd think the vacuum (i.e., space), being nothing, would have zero energy. This turns out not to be true: the vacuum has an energy level, sort of analogous to the energy level of electrons in an atom. This leads to the question of whether the vacuum energy can change, what would make it do that. (Note: that would presumably lead to Very Bad But Very Brief Day for Earth.)

When I was in grad school one of my friends was working on a paper which investigated whether the then-proposed Superconducting Supercollider would reach energies capable of inducing the vacuum to decay to a lower energy state, thereby destroying the universe (answer:no).

Krauss and Dent's paper is on the snooze-inducing subject of whether vacuum decay is exponential or a power law, and how you would tell the difference. The quantum-y destruction of the Universe part is this, at the very end:
If observations of quantum mechanical systems reset their clocks, which has been observed for laboratory systems, then by measuring the existence dark energy in our own universe have we reset the quantum mechanical configuration of our own universe so that late time will never be relevant? Put another way, can internal observations of the state of a metastable universe affect its longevity?

In other words, it's just something they thought of and want to check out. I myself will not be losing much sleep over the question. I'm more intrigued by the thought of who the hell trolls through dry and arcane scientific articles, looking for something juicy and sensational?

(Apparently the answer is Marcus Chown, who evidently missed his true calling as a *nix system administrator. Full article is subscription only.)

Krauss, by the way, is the author of The Physics of Star Trek and other books.
Posted by: Angie Schultz   2007-11-23 17:21  

#28  These "cosmologists" should have their degrees nullified. They sound more like 'troofers' than scientists.
Posted by: PBMcL   2007-11-23 15:06  

#27  Either Cat named "Oscar"?
Posted by: Redneck Jim   2007-11-23 15:04  

#26  hey.. that cat looks mighty suspecious like..

like he might know where all the stuff is..

..the dark stuff that is...

I don't know for that one, but THIS one certainly does...

Posted by: anonymous5089   2007-11-23 14:41  

#25  hey.. that cat looks mighty suspecious like..

like he might know where all the stuff is..

..the dark stuff that is...
Posted by: Red Dawg   2007-11-23 14:32  

#24  George Bush don't care about dark matter!
Posted by: Kanye West   2007-11-23 14:24  

#23  This is the old "If a tree falls in a forest..." question.


Of course there's a sound, saying that unless a human hears it, it didn't happen. Is trying to place humans in an all-important role THAT DOESN"T EXIST, it's simply a ploy to imply false human superiority.

Bullshit then, bullshit now.
Posted by: Redneck Jim   2007-11-23 14:20  

#22  But the bad is that quantum theory says that whenever we observe or measure something, we could stop it decaying due what is what is called the "quantum Zeno effect," which suggests that if an "observer" makes repeated, quick observations of a microscopic object undergoing change, the object can stop changing - just as a watched kettle never boils.


all that micro-layout Zeno guilt and billions double tape sizing/measures of dimensional lumber...
OhMyGawd, Ima dooomed... No you are doomed... we're all doomed!
/and dat poor poor tape worm!
Posted by: Red Dawg   2007-11-23 14:16  

#21  pls don't look at me
Posted by: Schrodingers Kitteh   2007-11-23 13:34  

#20  Quantum Cat is thinking....

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket
Posted by: Thomas Woof   2007-11-23 13:33  

#19  That's just stupid...
Posted by: Crusoter B. Hayes8857   2007-11-23 13:26  

#18  The nations the media and these snake doctors target are those countries who refuse to sign the Kyoto agreement.
Posted by: Skunky Crenter1414   2007-11-23 13:25  

#17   ItÂ’s the first effect of not believing in God that you lose your common sense.

G. K. Chesterton
Posted by: mrp   2007-11-23 13:22  

#16  1) You have liberal colleges turning out all liberals who have one goal. To ignore facts and put out garbage to support the leftist agenda.

2) In a round about way it supports the humans are responsible for "global warming" scam. Another guilt trip thing against people into saying, "OK, my bad. You are now in charge, wackos." Just what the scam artists want you to say.
Posted by: Skunky Crenter1414   2007-11-23 13:21  

#15  Universe to end, women and minorities hit hardest!

These dudes just proved the existence of God and that He is a jelous God. In a universe without a creator, there would be no unknowable mysteries and certainly no unknowables which would cause the soap bubble to burst when approached too closely (on an intellectual basis). QED God exists.

Take that, Chris Hitchens! And you, Dawkins!- quit mucking about or you will make Him take his ball and go home.
Posted by: Gerthudion Omeating5897   2007-11-23 13:19  

#14  And they make fun of those who beleive in a Creator who set up rules, versus utter fancy and arbitrary?
Posted by: OldSpook   2007-11-23 13:05  

#13  Cosmologists or cosmetologists? You be the judge.
Posted by: Alaska Paul   2007-11-23 12:29  

#12  And I bet these cosmologists laugh at people who check their horoscopes in the morning....
Posted by: Swamp Blondie   2007-11-23 11:57  

#11  Observing dark energy changes/shortens the life span? Quick...everybody stare at Hillary. I know it hurts but it's for the children ;)
Posted by: Warthog   2007-11-23 11:42  

#10  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.

Utter rubbish on many levels.
Fancy that, they call it "dark nergy" because they can't observe it.

It is just a mathematical construct to explain some behavior (presumed expansion, based on red shift which BTW is not an indication of speeding away--there is enough evidence that we got this completely wrong).

They have also "dark energy" that is a glue for galaxies because calcs based on gravity alone would have them flying apart.
Posted by: twobyfour   2007-11-23 11:35  

#9  Schrodinger's cat is an observer.
Posted by: James   2007-11-23 11:27  

#8  It's all our fault for selecting not electing George W. Bush using fossil fuels inventing fire climbing down out of the trees.
Posted by: Excalibur   2007-11-23 10:57  

#7  Let me guess. He (or his organization) wants money to research ways to prevent it. And of course progress cannot be measured.

Oh and Schrodinger's cat isn't alive or dead. It simply doesn't exist (until you look).
Posted by: CrazyFool   2007-11-23 10:05  

#6  Gah! As if the perturbations of a single atom could foredoom the structure of an entire solar system. That's pretty much the scale of mankind to the universe, only much more infintesimal. Tripe like this should result in instant budget cuts and pink slips.
Posted by: Zenster   2007-11-23 09:58  

#5  There are many varieties of the 'multiverse' hypothesis. It's mostly just a fun subject for conjecture since no objective test of any of these versions of the hypothesis is doable for many years.
Posted by: mhw   2007-11-23 09:32  

#4  Deacon,

Well said. I was just explaining that to my wife when before I read your post.

The truly frightening thing is that bugwits (gotta steal that one) like these are professors.

This is the old "If a tree falls in a forest..." question.

Bugwits.
Posted by: AlanC   2007-11-23 09:32  

#3  It's all my fault, I'm sorry, I'll just crawl into foetal position, laying naked in the snow, and wait for death, or having to go to the bathroom, whichever comes first.
Posted by: anonymous5089   2007-11-23 09:28  

#2  So, does this mean I have the power to change things just by looking at them? There are some things that need energy added in order for one to be able to observe them. This means the state after observation is different than the state before observation. In that sense observation has changed things. Mearly looking at something doesn't change the state. Bugwits.
Posted by: Deacon Blues   2007-11-23 09:23  

#1  ..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

But, but, but that was Clinton the First's watch. Oh, never mind. Of course, severe BDS also has associated symptoms of time-space distortions as well.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2007-11-23 09:08  

00:00