The Universe Damaged By Observation? 521
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.'"
So if I stop looking? (Score:4, Funny)
Or will it turn into a dead cat in a box
Re: (Score:2)
Re:So if I stop looking? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:So if I stop looking? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:So if I stop looking? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:So if I stop looking? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:So if I stop looking? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:So if I stop looking? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:So if I stop looking? (Score:4, Funny)
Oedipus says, "Why not?".
The bartender says, "No, not you. You're okay. We tolerate your sexual lifestyle in this neighbourhood. As for you 2, you both are just plain nuts.".
Re:So if I stop looking? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:So if I stop looking? (Score:4, Insightful)
"just as a watched kettle never boils." i.e. doesn't change a thing
Interaction vs. observation (Score:3, Interesting)
The question is how complex is complex enough? The only criteria we know is enough, is interaction with an intelligent observer, a.k.a. observation. Because observation is the only way we can determine the outcome.
What happens to a system when it is not observed is anyway philosophy, not physics.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I am sorry, Wikipedia was not on the reading list at Oxford.
Explaining Stern-Gerlach by reference to observation is an uhga-buhga approach to Quantum Physics. OK if you want to take the poision that the universe computes using lazy evaluation you can make an unfalsifiable theory out of it.
A much simpler interpretation is that the interaction in the z plane causes the x plane to defocus and vice versa because the two are aspects of a single
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Faster than light interaction does not require faster than light transfer of information. All attempts to use faster than light interaction to cause transfer of information have failed to date.
Positing that particles behave differently when being 'observed' would require you to provide a testable definition of 'observation' whic I d
Re:So if I stop looking? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Makes me lend some credence to the "infinite universes" theory. We actually destroyed some other universe, not our own.
Of course, it's more likely I'm just being dense and not understanding the theory involved here, and th
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
If that is true... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:If that is true... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:If that is true... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:If that is true... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:If that is true... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:If that is true... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:If that is true... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Well now, that's a word I never thought I'd see here.
I'm a little hesitant to welcome our new exfoliating overloards.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You may not damage the universe, but I suggest you have your vision checked regularly.
That explains it (Score:2)
always felt that reading slashdot was taking years of my life.
Re:If that is true... (Score:5, Funny)
Don't worry, dupes are on the way...
Let's hope God is a slashdot editor.
No, it makes it longer ... (Score:2)
Your post isn't made up of "dark energy", so observing it doesn't shorten its' life - it makes it longer.
Same as a watched kettle takes longer to boil.
Now if your post was from the dark side (for example, you were an M$ employee going on about te lower TCO and energy savings of Vista as it converts your laptop into a toaster oven), your post WOULD have shortened visibility as it quickly sinks to -666.
Re:If that is true... (Score:5, Funny)
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.
On first glance... (Score:5, Insightful)
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:2)
Everything is changed by observing it, but only on the quantum level if I have this right, something to do with wave form collapsing or somesuch.
Since everything is made out of quantum, nothing can escaped being changed.
Re:On first glance... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I have a degree from Oxford University Dept. of Nuclear Physics.
Sounds like the most ridiculous idea since Fliechmann and Ponsi tried to do cold fusion to me
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It used to, you changed the answer by observing it..
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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)
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)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
In short, quantum physics kicks common sense right smack in the nuts.
Perfect definition of Quantum Physics (Score:3, Funny)
-Rick
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that a shadow was cast where there ought not to be one. However tiny or difficult to measure, we have injected ourselves into the vast mix known as infinity.
Now, there is an incomplete horizon - a break in an otherwise perfect line...a line that once broken, can never be drawn again. It is this most minor of flaws that we now now deal with. The universe is right to be concerned that we may not have the means to make things right once again, for we are no more of an inf
Re: (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 b
Re: (Score:2)
Re:On first glance... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:On first glance... (Score:4, Interesting)
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)
In fact, if an event changes macroscopic state of ANY physical object - it already counts as observation.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Already Proposed (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
(No racial jokes about "dark matter," please. In the unlit box, all of Schroedinger's cats are grey.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, you're wrong. The act of observing something, even AFTER the event, changes the whole chain of events.
Look at the two-slit experiments. No observer after the photon passes through the slit - interference patterns, even when only one photon at a time is in the box. Observer - no interference patterns. In other words, the act of observing changes not just the outcome, but the causality.
Re: (Score:2)
Observation of an event 'creates' it (collapses wavefunction).
Re: (Score:2)
Now if we went totally outside the boundaries of the earth, and added a *new* object ( say a deep space probe ) to intersect those photons then we might have something real to debate.
How about Schrodinger cat? (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If that's a consistent phenomenon in quantum physics, it supports the "simulated reality" hypothesis, i.e., that the universe is a simulation on someone's computer. Hear me out:
If someone were to run a simulated reality, they would (as we observe in known simulated reality) take steps to minimize computational resources. Where possible, if a computation doesn't effect future states, and they can feasibly exclude it,
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In many-worlds theory quantum systems never really collapse - they just branch new universes. In the classical Copenhagen interpretation the wave-function collapses. There's also 'many minds' interpretation (which states that universe exists because it's being observed by conscious observers) and so on.
Underlying math does not depend on your favorite interpretation. And so they are outside of scope of the science at the mome
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
But in the real world there's always some kind of 'observer'.
consciousness does not... (Score:4, Insightful)
YOU ARE NOT SPECIAL.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Our strange shy universe? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Who would have thought some primitive hominids could be so destructive? To shorten the life of the universe just by looking at it?
Hey - if we can destroy the Earth just by driving SUV's and using plastic shopping bags...
Let's face it: we're just one bad-assed mofo of a species. I personally pity any aliens that try to screw with us. Oh, and forget the nuclear weapons and all that Area 51 shit... we'll just stare their scrawny grey big-headed asses into oblivion! Bring it on you saucer-jockeys! You may have mastered inter-galactic travel, but we got the Eyeballs of Death, foo...
*(note to the Global-Warming folks, pro or con: it'
wah (Score:3, Funny)
I for one welcome... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I can has Braaaaaainssss...
X-Bender: Bender's a genius! (Score:5, Funny)
Farnsworth: No fair! You changed the outcome by measuring it!
I doubt this is the case (Score:2)
Or perhaps it did happen and no one noticed.
END COMMUNICATION
Of course! (Score:5, Funny)
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)
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.
This is some of the worst science reporting ever! (Score:3, Informative)
We need to reign in these rogue astronomers, stat!! LOL
That's it! (Score:2)
Stupidest. Article. Evar (Score:5, Insightful)
completely idiotic (Score:2, Insightful)
Quarantine by Greg Egan (Score:4, Interesting)
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)
SETI@Home is an Al Quaeda plot dedicated to the destruction of the universe!
Wasn't that the plot of an ST:TNG episode? (Score:2)
Even if this idea is unsubstantiated I can imagine the anti-science crowd taking this and saying we shouldn't do any science at all.
Assuming they're right... (Score:2)
But obviously, it's more fun to focus on the more sensationalist, fearmongering, idea.
Copenhagen interpretation (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
New SETI Proposal (Score:2)
A god sent gift to trial lawyers! (Score:2)
Wow (Score:2)
Oh, and obligatory Professor Farnsworth quote: "No fair! You changed the outcome by measuring it!"
And in seriousness, I am having a hard time wrapping my head around this. It's very abstract to me
The current cult of quantum mechanics is bs (Score:2)
First it was just silly way to explain the randomness. Now its a fact that the scientific method of observation need not apply.
Maybe the ancients were on to something (Score:2, Funny)
Life imitates Douglas Adams (Score:3, Funny)
I have had the same experience (Score:2)
We're in for it now (Score:3, Funny)
The mice are gonna be pissed.
I don't get it. (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
Damn you Norris ! (Score:4, Funny)
However since the resulting implosion of the universe was not able to account for the presense of Chuck Norris, it simply reset.
Descartes revisited.... (Score:3, Funny)
-Mike
Re:The phrase (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)