Mankind is Shortening the Universes Life

[Milton Bradley]

Mankind 'shortening the universe's life' - Telegraph

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 mind-boggling 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 interpretation (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.

Hehehe, I always knew science was working towards something...but this?

[Jack]

I was under the impression that the uncertainty principle only worked at the quantum level, not at a macro level. It doesn't immediately make sense that we humans could affect anything at a distance in the universe. But then, much of quantum theory makes no sense to me. Not that I don't accept it, it just boggles my mind.

[Praxius]

So basically what you're trying to explain is that there are too many people turning to.....

"THE DARK SIDE"


See all those Hippies were trying to not just save a country, not just a world, but the Universe, at the Quantum level

[another day]

don't understand this. seems like bullshit.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Isherwood I was under the impression that the uncertainty principle only worked at the quantum level, not at a macro level. It doesn't immediately make sense that we humans could affect anything at a distance in the universe.

That was my understanding as well.

Quote by: anther day don't understand this. seems like bullshit.

That was my understanding as well.


I don't know, either somebdoies reaching in an attenpt to connect micro, and macro, or the implication would be that dark matter consists of the former, and any attempts to observe it are dangerous.


It was good for a chuckle though.

[Suburbanite]

Nothing from science sounds more retarded and religious than quantum physics.

[Jack]

Must be an "eye of the beholder" thing, because I've never read anything about it that made me think that. I can grasp the uncertainty principle (I get lost shortly past that point) and I've read a lot that escapes my comprehension, but it isn't mystical or magical.

[Praxius]

Quote by: Suburbanite Nothing from science sounds more retarded and religious than quantum physics.

There see, proof religion is centuries ahead of science

[Suburbanite]

Quote by: Isherwood Must be an "eye of the beholder" thing, because I've never read anything about it that made me think that. I can grasp the uncertainty principle (I get lost shortly past that point) and I've read a lot that escapes my comprehension, but it isn't mystical or magical.

its imaginary, just a load of fiction, speculation, and a poor understanding of the scientist's vocabulary.

[Rainbow]

Read that article again, guys.
Mankind is not shortening the life of Universe, in its strickt sense.
We just simply miscalculated some occurances and/or events, while with new advanced technology we have an opportunity to correct that data, today.
Yet, there are billions of years ahead of us :-) then we are going to update our technology and re-calculate that data again, and again, etc. :-)

[Arawn-ap-Hywel]

(damn this will mean a bunch of theist fundamentalists lighting bonfires switching on light bulbs and praying fastidiously to save heaven)

[Keith Hamburger]

If there weren't intelligent beings to observe the life of the universe, would it matter in the first place? If such is the case, what does it matter that those intelligent beings shorten the universe's life?

Keith

[Elminister]

Without a specific, uniqe contact of any sort,minus the planets we have had physical contact with via landing probes,mankind has altered anything. Observing light rays thru optics or transmitting/observing radio noise could have an impact on what?

[Jack]

In a nutshell, the theory suggests that we change things simply by looking at them and theorists have puzzled over the implications for years.

I think this is stated so simply as to be incorrect. The uncertainty principle says, ""The more precisely the position of a particle is determined, the less precisely the momentum is known". The above confuses the effects of the Schrodinger's cat experiment with the Observer Effect.

In science, the term observer effect refers to changes that the act of observing will make on the phenomenon being observed. For example, for us to "see" an electron, a photon must first interact with it, and this interaction will change the path of that electron. It is also theoretically possible for other, less direct means of measurement to affect the electron; even if the electron is simply put into a position where observing it is possible, without actual observation taking place, it will still (theoretically) alter its position. In physics, a more mundane observer effect can be the result of instruments that by necessity alter the state of what they measure in some manner. For instance, in electronics, ammeters and voltmeters need to be connected to the circuit, and so by their very presence affect the current or the voltage they are measuring. Likewise, a standard mercury-in-glass thermometer must absorb some thermal energy to record a temperature, and therefore changes the temperature of the body which it is measuring. A common lay misuse of the term refers to quantum mechanics, where, if the outcome of an event has not been observed, it exists in a state of 'superposition', which is akin to being in all possible states at once. In the famous thought experiment known as Schrödinger's cat the cat is supposedly neither alive nor dead until observed — until that time, the cat is both alive and dead (technically half-alive and half-dead in probability terms). However, most quantum physicists, in resolving Schrödinger's seeming paradox, now understand that the acts of 'observation' and 'measurement' must also be defined in quantum terms before the question makes sense. From this point of view, there is no 'observer effect', only one vastly entangled quantum system. A significant minority still find the equations point to an observer; Wheeler, who probably worked more deeply on this subject than any physicist thus far, devised a graphic in which the universe was represented by a "U" with an eye on one end, turned around and viewing itself, to describe his understanding. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is also frequently confused with the "observer effect". The uncertainty principle actually describes how precisely we may measure the position and momentum of a particle at the same time — if we increase the precision in measuring one quantity, we are forced to lose precision in measuring the other. Thus, the uncertainty principle deals with measurement, and not observation. The idea that the Uncertainty Principle is caused by disturbance (and hence by observation) is not considered to be valid by some, although it was extant in the early years of quantum mechanics, and is often repeated in popular treatments. There is a related issue in quantum mechanics relating to whether systems have pre-existing — prior to measurement, that is — properties corresponding to all measurements that could possibly be made on them. The assumption that they do is often referred to as "realism" in the literature, although it has been argued that the word "realism" is being used in a more restricted sense than philosophical realism[1]. A recent experiment in the realm of quantum physics has been quoted as meaning that we have to "say goodbye" to realism, although the author of the paper states only that "we would [..] have to give up certain intuitive features of realism" [2] [3]. These experiments demonstrate a puzzling relationship between the act of measurement and the system being measured, but it is unclear if they require a conscious observer or not.

Observer effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (emphasis added)

Either way, it seems this only applies at the quantum level.

[Rainbow]

In a nutshell, the theory suggests that we change things simply by looking at them and theorists have puzzled over the implications for years. In science, the term observer effect refers to changes that the act of observing will make on the phenomenon being observed. For example, for us to "see" an electron, a photon must first interact with it, and this interaction will change the path of that electron. It is also theoretically possible for other, less direct means of measurement to affect the electron; even if the electron is simply put into a position where observing it is possible, without actual observation taking place, it will still (theoretically) alter its position. In physics, a more mundane observer effect can be the result of instruments that by necessity alter the state of what they measure in some manner. For instance, in electronics, ammeters and voltmeters need to be connected to the circuit, and so by their very presence affect the current or the voltage they are measuring. Likewise, a standard mercury-in-glass thermometer must absorb some thermal energy to record a temperature, and therefore changes the temperature of the body which it is measuring.

Homo Sapiens is a part of the Universe.
A form of approach (and/or interaction(s) ) stands for different outcomes and/or values.

A common lay misuse of the term refers to quantum mechanics, where, if the outcome of an event has not been observed, it exists in a state of 'superposition', which is akin to being in all possible states at once. In the famous thought experiment known as Schrödinger's cat the cat is supposedly neither alive nor dead until observed — until that time, the cat is both alive and dead (technically half-alive and half-dead in probability terms). However, most quantum physicists, in resolving Schrödinger's seeming paradox, now understand that the acts of 'observation' and 'measurement' must also be defined in quantum terms before the question makes sense. From this point of view, there is no 'observer effect', only one vastly entangled quantum system. A significant minority still find the equations point to an observer; Wheeler, who probably worked more deeply on this subject than any physicist thus far, devised a graphic in which the universe was represented by a "U" with an eye on one end, turned around and viewing itself, to describe his understanding. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is also frequently confused with the "observer effect". The uncertainty principle actually describes how precisely we may measure the position and momentum of a particle at the same time — if we increase the precision in measuring one quantity, we are forced to lose precision in measuring the other. Thus, the uncertainty principle deals with measurement, and not observation. The idea that the Uncertainty Principle is caused by disturbance (and hence by observation) is not considered to be valid by some, although it was extant in the early years of quantum mechanics, and is often repeated in popular treatments.

I am not certain whether the Homo Sapiens' consciousness and/or perception and/or Both is/are the factors that cause a subject's outcomes vary, since those guys seem to be in disagreement on that issue.
In my opinion, both factors reflect the outcomes.

[Nemiroff]

We see the electron only because light hit it and bounced off and then went into our eye, we see the electron as being in the place it was when the light hit it, but after that the light knocked the electron into a different position so when we do are it, its no longer there.

That is what is meant by affecting it by looking at it, the actual looking does nothing, your only taking the light in, not stooting something out. The light would have hit the electron wether you saw it or not

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Nemiroff We see the electron only because light hit it and bounced off and then went into our eye, we see the electron as being in the place it was when the light hit it, but after that the light knocked the electron into a different position so when we do are it, its no longer there. That is what is meant by affecting it by looking at it, the actual looking does nothing, your only taking the light in, not stooting something out. The light would have hit the electron wether you saw it or not

Are you suggesting that an element's presence is meaningless and/or irrelevant ? and applies to a particular case only ?

[Nemiroff]

No, but it is quantum fact (unless something changed very recently) that you cannot know the position and speed(?) of particles like electrons that are so light that light actually affects their position. If you measure their position their speed/direction changed, if you measure their speed, their position just changed. I do not see where this makes anythin irrelevant, we wish we could measure both but at the moment that's impossible, the particles are still relevant, and if we figure out a way to get both, that info would also be very relevant