Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

The Universe Damaged By Observation?

Posted by Zonk on Fri Nov 23, 2007 04:25 PM
from the a-bit-deep-for-me dept.
Space Science
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.'"
+ -
story

Related Stories

Submission: Mankind damages universe by looking at it. by ScentCone (795499)
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

The Universe Damaged By Observation? 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • So if I stop looking? (Score:4, Funny)

    by Finallyjoined!!! (1158431) on Friday November 23 2007, @04:27PM (#21457005)
    Will it revert?

    Or will it turn into a dead cat in a box :-)

  • If that is true... (Score:5, Funny)

    by starglider29a (719559) on Friday November 23 2007, @04:27PM (#21457007)
    Do I also shorten the life of this post by reading it?

  • On first glance... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 23 2007, @04:31PM (#21457035)
    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?

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by ByOhTek (1181381)
      You are missing absolutely nothing. Those that mystify the "observation changest things" are missing something.

      To observe something, it must be interacted with. The most common form of interaction involves a photon bouncing off of something, or being generated by something.

      This involves a small energy transfer and/or a series of reactions between the "thing" used for observation and the observee. This is why observation causes a solidification of state, and/or change.

      • Re:On first glance... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by ETEQ (519425) on Friday November 23 2007, @05:20PM (#21457507)

        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).

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by ETEQ (519425)

      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 b

      • 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?

        • Re:On first glance... (Score:4, Interesting)

          by dpilot (134227) on Friday November 23 2007, @09:39PM (#21459537) Homepage Journal
          Several years back I read about an experiment I would have thought would be authoritative on this. It was a classic split-beam type of thing, with detectors that could determine which path the photon went down. In normal circumstances, when you insert the detectors, the interference pattern goes away and you get a classical distribution. When you remove the detectors, you get an interference pattern in the quantum mechanical distribution.

          That's all wellandgood, but here's the twist. They inserted the detectors, and disconnected the outputs from any sort of meter or display device. Therefore the detectors "observed," but no conscious knowledge could be gained.

          The interference pattern went away, and they got a classical distribution.

          IMHO, the wave "collapses" when the potential error exceeds Heisenberg's limit, and that constitutes "observation." Most any other answer makes a special place for consciousness in the universe, and cascades into telepathy, clairvoyance, the Force, etc.

          Wish I could remember the reference.

  • That's stupid (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Cyberax (705495) on Friday November 23 2007, @04:32PM (#21457039)
    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.
    • No fair!! You changed the outcome by measuring it!!
    • This has already been thoroughly investigated in: Greg Egan's "Quarantine" [wikipedia.org]

      n the novel a physical process in the human brain is responsible for all causality, by collapsing wavefunctions representing systems into particular eigenstates. Human observations of the universe were reducing its diversity and potentiality (for instance, by rendering it uninhabitable to beings that relied on stars being something other than the enormous nuclear fusion-powered furnaces human astronomers have observed them to be).

    • May be universe does not care about conscious observers, but cats sure do. Just try to observe any cat in your neighborhood and watch for its reaction.

  • consciousness does not... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 23 2007, @04:33PM (#21457047)
    ...have a privileged place in the universe that would fundamentally change the universe.

    YOU ARE NOT SPECIAL.

  • Our strange shy universe? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jamstar7 (694492) on Friday November 23 2007, @04:33PM (#21457053)
    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.

  • wah (Score:3, Funny)

    by thhamm (764787) on Friday November 23 2007, @04:34PM (#21457059)
    quick, lets draw up some pointless laws against this!
  • What we don't realize is all this study into quantum mechanics is falling right into Schrodinger's cat's hands. It wants us to make him an undead kitty so it can open a hole in the universe and let the infinite number of possibilities of it all flow into this one, and thus will take over the world. The only way we'll win this future battle is if we observe it enough that it goes away.

  • X-Bender: Bender's a genius! (Score:5, Funny)

    by JensenDied (1009293) on Friday November 23 2007, @04:36PM (#21457085)
    Track Announcer: And the winner is ... Number 3, in a quantum finish.
    Farnsworth: No fair! You changed the outcome by measuring it!

  • Of course! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Jethro (14165) on Friday November 23 2007, @04:44PM (#21457153)
    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.

  • Crap, crap, crap (Score:5, Informative)

    by SpectreBlofeld (886224) on Friday November 23 2007, @04:45PM (#21457161)
    I sincerely hope this is a case of a reporter misunderstanding a scientist's statement.

      Waveform collapse applies to quantum probabilities, not passive long-distance observations. They occur because an observer influences an observation; interfering with that which is observed is the only way one can observe it on the scales in which quantum phenomena occur. When observing the light of stars, no information is being sent back to the source; and the idea that consciousness somehow magically induces waveform collapse has all but died, favoring instead theories of quantum decoherence and the indroduction of new 'thermal' states during the observation process as the trigger for waveform collapse.

      My only hope is that they've cooked up this idea simply to show how silly the idea of consciousness-triggered waveform collapse is; much like Schrodinger created the cat thought experiment to demonstrate what he saw as a flaw of the Copenhagen interpretation of superposition.

  • Stupidest. Article. Evar (Score:5, Insightful)

    by $RANDOMLUSER (804576) on Friday November 23 2007, @04:47PM (#21457175)
    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.

  • Quarantine by Greg Egan (Score:4, Interesting)

    by MichaelSmith (789609) on Friday November 23 2007, @04:49PM (#21457197) Homepage Journal

    Quarantine [wikipedia.org] by Greg Egan [wikipedia.org]...is a great book which explores the idea that the wave function collapse caused by observation is something specific to the human brain, and the rest of the universe is starting to get a bit upset about humans carving up the universe by observing it.

    Its a great read, and a good way to get a better understanding of (at least Egans' idea of) quantum mechanics.

  • SETI@Home is a terrorist plot (Score:5, Funny)

    by Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) on Friday November 23 2007, @04:51PM (#21457205)
    Finally! The proof I always knew existed!
    SETI@Home is an Al Quaeda plot dedicated to the destruction of the universe!

  • Copenhagen interpretation (Score:5, Interesting)

    by digitalderbs (718388) on Friday November 23 2007, @04:53PM (#21457221)
    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.

  • Life imitates Douglas Adams (Score:3, Funny)

    by howdoesth (1132949) on Friday November 23 2007, @05:08PM (#21457383)
    There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened.

  • I don't get it. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by niktemadur (793971) on Friday November 23 2007, @05:41PM (#21457681)
    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.

  • unfounded (Score:4, Insightful)

    by m2943 (1140797) on Friday November 23 2007, @05:58PM (#21457843)
    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.

  • Damn you Norris ! (Score:4, Funny)

    by Joebert (946227) on Friday November 23 2007, @06:18PM (#21458069) Homepage
    On Haloween Chuck Norris tried to scare himself while looking in the mirror.
    However since the resulting implosion of the universe was not able to account for the presense of Chuck Norris, it simply reset.

    • Re:The phrase (Score:5, Insightful)

      by SatanicPuppy (611928) * <[moc.liamg] [ta] [yppupcinataS]> on Friday November 23 2007, @04:35PM (#21457079) Journal
      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.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.