This Is How Stupid These People Are.

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ma.../11/21/scicosmos121.xml&CMP=ILC-mostviewedbox

We've doomed the whole damned Universe by looking at it. It was probably Bush who did it when earning his astronomy merit badge in the Scouts.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

As if I didn't have enough to worry about...

 

[cheerful_deviant]

That has to be one of the most obsurd arguments I've read in a while.

Schrodinger's Cat showed very well how absurd some theories of quantum mech can really be when you actually rationalize them and the same applies to this one.

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.

Maybe if I go observe my car some while it's sitting in the driveway it will revert back to a state when it ran better.

 

[WRJames]

The article did not bother to say how distant this "dark energy" was -- but one would assume thousands, perhaps millions, of lightyears away. Which would mean that we were observing its state far in the past. Would it have, at that time, suddenly reverted to another state, based on the prospect of our future observation?

 

[gauchecritic]

What is never explained, and which is vital, in collapsing waveforms by measurement is that the particle will only collapse to its either/or state if Charlie Brown himself looks inside the piano. And since Charlie Brown is not only fictional but also a cartoon it is beyond probability that he will actually choose to look, because he is entirely without free will.

 

[cheerful_deviant]

What is never explained, and which is vital, in collapsing waveforms by measurement is that the particle will only collapse to its either/or state if Charlie Brown himself looks inside the piano. And since Charlie Brown is not only fictional but also a cartoon it is beyond probability that he will actually choose to look, because he is entirely without free will.

What about Snoopy? I saw him in the parade the other day. Can he proxy look for Charlie?

 

[slyc_willie]

Well, here's a thought: The universe changes once you look at it, simply because you looked at it (why do hear Nicolas Cage's voice?). One might think, if there were, throughout the entire universe, perhaps just a few other thousand intelligent races, that the universe has already been looked at quite a few times. Which makes me wonder:

1) The effects of our observation of the universe cannot have so much impact because those other thousands of races have, are, or will make their own observations;

2) The simple act of observing the universe has no discernible effect upon it's stability;

3) We are alone in the universe nad have just royally screwed things up.

Just a few thoughts . . . .

 

[Oblimo]

Schrodinger's Cat showed very well how absurd some theories of quantum mech can really be when you actually rationalize them and the same applies to this one.

The Schrodinger's Cat hypothetical is hardly absurd, especially compared to the even weirder experimentally validated nonlocality of subatomic particles.

Keep in mind that the weirdness of QM is based on the mechanism of observation/measurement, not the phenomenology. That is, there's nothing mystical or magical about being measured by a human. It's the physical effects required to make such a measurement that causes the Weirdness.

 

[TE999]

I think The Telegraph stole this stuff from The Onion.

 

[slyc_willie]

I think The Telegraph stole this stuff from The Onion.

Ideas and theories about dark matter and dark energy have been pretty hot topics in the cosmological world for quite a while now. There are almost as many theories about it as there are scientists who study it.

Some say as little as 40% of the universe is composed of dark matter, others that as much as 90% is. One of the more interesting ones is that, if not for dark matter, the galaxies would not move the way they do. Our own Milky Way would have spiraled out of control billions of years ago.

On the other hand . . . them Onion writers do get some unlikely nuggets of wisdom . . . .

 

[Katyusha]

That has to be one of the most obsurd arguments I've read in a while.

Schrodinger's Cat showed very well how absurd some theories of quantum mech can really be when you actually rationalize them and the same applies to this one.



Maybe if I go observe my car some while it's sitting in the driveway it will revert back to a state when it ran better.

LOL I was thinking something similar.

However...

A common interpretation of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle says "Whatever you study, you also change." In other words, you can't observe something without also interacting with it. One can easily apply this to observing animals in the wild AND to lab experiments, but it's harder to think about when applying it to observations of things in space...things we can't possibly interact with.

Or can we? For me personally, when I think of observing things in space I think of the standard visual-spectrum telescope I take out into the backyard on warm nights. But most observations aren't done that way. The most compelling evidence for dark energy is a certain type of supernova because they emit a certain amount and type of light on a very consistent basis. They measured the redshifts of some of these supernovas and found that the universe's expansion is accelerating instead of decelerating, which means there's energy at work we can't see.

Now, what I'm NOT finding is what we used to observe and measure the redshifts of all these supernovas. If we used something other than standard visual opticals (ie, large versions of backyard telescopes) then it's possible we did interact with the dark energy somehow while observing it because we sent some type of energy its way.

So while it sounds absurd (and I agree, it sounds RIDICULOUSLY absurd) it may actually be true. And if it is, then think of all the other species in the universe that are doing the exact same thing. But I think someone's STILL making a huge mountain out of a molehill.

 

[WRJames]

We are obwerving what the thing looked like a million years ago. It would be like observing the mummy of King Tut and have that somehow affect his life.

 

[slyc_willie]

We are obwerving what the thing looked like a million years ago. It would be like observing the mummy of King Tut and have that somehow affect his life.

Are you saying it wouldn't? Or, at the least, our view of his life, and how we interpret the subsequent actions of his life?

And how might that knowledge, flawed or not, influence us today?

Observing dark energy, or dark matter, might change the way it acts upon us, or it may change the way we act upon it. Either way, our views are changed.

 

[Oblimo]

We are obwerving what the thing looked like a million years ago. It would be like observing the mummy of King Tut and have that somehow affect his life.

It's called nonlocality, a/k/a "spooky action at a distance." Distance matters not on the subatomic scale, as Yoda might say.

However, if you want to apply quantum mechanics "to the universe as a whole," (viewing the universe as a closed expanding subatomic system), the best place is a science fiction novel (IIRC, the universe as atom is a favorite of Poul Anderson's), or with some stoned astrophysicists.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Gauche

The local schools arrest kids for drawing pictures of guns, so anything is possible.

 

[Liar]

The Schrodinger's Cat hypothetical is hardly absurd, especially compared to the even weirder experimentally validated nonlocality of subatomic particles.

Keep in mind that the weirdness of QM is based on the mechanism of observation/measurement, not the phenomenology. That is, there's nothing mystical or magical about being measured by a human. It's the physical effects required to make such a measurement that causes the Weirdness.

Aye.

And moreso, Schrodinger's Cat applied to anything but Schroedinger, a box and an unfortunate cat, is reduced to holistic philosophy. So yes. Five guys with telescopes observing an astronomic phenomena might affect it (if it's still there by the time they see it). But not even as much as a random fart affects a hurricane. So: *yawn*

 

[oggbashan]

We are obwerving what the thing looked like a million years ago. It would be like observing the mummy of King Tut and have that somehow affect his life.

But the whole point of mummification was to preserve King Tut's life and provide for him in the next stage of his existence. Observing his mummy affects his current existence because we aren't giving him the reverence that was considered his due and to that extent we are devaluing his current existence.

King Tut lives (but not as we know it, Scotty).

Og

 

[Chantilyvamp]

*bounces* call for the transformers they can fix it

*giggles* sorry this was a serious discussion </threadjack>

 

[Oblimo]

Aye.

And moreso, Schrodinger's Cat applied to anything but Schroedinger, a box and an unfortunate cat, is reduced to holistic philosophy...But not even as much as a random fart affects a hurricane. So: *yawn*

Oh, yeah? Well how about Schrodinger's Qauntum Butterflies? Same box, but instead of killing a cat, the decaying isotope releases a hundred monarch butterflies from the inside. Now the weather is fundamentally indeterministic and unpredictable! Muahahaha!

 

[gauchecritic]

Does anyone know what happens to the observed particle once we stop looking? Seriously, have any scientists looked further than 'looking affects the looked at'?

What happens when we stop looking, does it just go back to what it was doing before we looked?

We can see or measure the velocity or direction of a particle or whatever (but not both) but surely that doesn't actually stop it going where it was going at its original speed and in the same direction.

Isn't all this mathematical anyway? The scientists don't actually measure these tiny things do they, only the paths they left.

Just remember two things that your mother told you: Looking won't hurt. and: You look with your eyes not your fingers.

(I forgot the third thing: don't draw guns in school. I never understood that one)

 

[Oblimo]

Does anyone know what happens to the observed particle once we stop looking?

It exists in a possibly superpositioned quantum state. All that means is that the cat is alive/dead instead of alive or dead until you poke it with a stick. Your mental state has nothing to do with it. It's the poking with the stick that forces the cat one way or another.

A waveform also collapses when it is, uh, stick-poke-able, however. The Alive/Dead cat only exists if there is no way of telling whether the cat is alive or dead without disturbing the box from outside. If you can hear the cat, or if the box would start to smell after it dies, it's either alive or dead, not alive/dead. Quantum Mechanics is not necessarily solipsistic.

Seriously, have any scientists looked further than 'looking affects the looked at'?

It's what the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and fun things like quantum computers are all about.

What happens when we stop looking, does it just go back to what it was doing before we looked?

Nope, because it wasn't doing it that the first place.

We can see or measure the velocity or direction of a particle or whatever (but not both) but surely that doesn't actually stop it going where it was going at its original speed and in the same direction.

Actually, it does. The only way to measure particles, see, is to bounce other particles off of them. Imagine you're looking for a ping-pong ball in a pitch black room. You hunt around the floor with your fingers--you brush against it so you know where it was, but you've sent it off somewhere, so you only have a vague idea of where it's going. Now picture trying to find a photon with another photon, and you'll get the idea.

Isn't all this mathematical anyway? The scientists don't actually measure these tiny things do they, only the paths they left.

Here's where Einstein got annoyed, even though he developed the concept in the first place: there is no difference between the thing and the path it leaves. At the quantum mechanical level, waveparticles exist as probabilities. The math is not an abstraction; there is no objectively existing particle hiding somewhere along the waveform path. The objectively existing thing is neither particle nor wave, but both.

Our brains are wired such that we comprehend particles (a ping pong ball) and waves (a pattern of ping pong balls bouncing against each other) to be separate, opposing things, like space and time. That's because we live at the mesoscopic level -- to hunt game, grow crops, and write porn, a 3 dimensional POV is an advantage.

When we start trying to look at really big or really small things, the Universe is not kind enough to operate the way our senses say it should.

 

[gauchecritic]

Thanks ob, that's made it a little less muddy. So looking only gives the observer knowledge of what has happened, whether we looked or not. So looking at black holes only tells us that they've done something not that we've made something happen?

All the x and gamma particles that they measured with their telescopes have happened rather than collapsed and the only things affected (because they're not attached to any causation) is that they've been seen. Yes?

Because otherwise they are saying that these particles have a purpose and destiny.

 

[Oblimo]

Thanks ob, that's made it a little less muddy.

Awright, I made sense for once!

So looking only gives the observer knowledge of what has happened, whether we looked or not.

On the macroscopic scale, yes. Looking at (or listening too) something is a physical act. Those physical acts accompanying the gaining of knowledge always have an impact on thing observed, but whether those acts are significant greatly depends on what observations I'm taking, and what I'm observing.

Walking over to look into a bowl of jell-o doesn't do anything significant to the jell-o. Measuring its viscosity by poking it with a fork, however, does.

The more sensitive a system is to initial conditions and to the mechanics of measuring, however, the more measuring affects it. Poke a fork into a bowl of jell-o alters the jell-o significantly, but not enough to make anything weird. Poke a jell-o atom with a beam of photons, however, and uncertainty skyrockets.

So looking at black holes only tells us that they've done something not that we've made something happen?

Now that's an evil question. I have to answer that officially, the jury is still out on that question, because a more fundamental problem -- do any of the principles of quantum mechanics "scale up" above the subatomic level -- is still being debated as part of the whole "Unified Field Theory" controversy. But there's nothing magical about consciousness -- it's the physical act of measurement that makes any potential Weirdness happen.

However, no one is saying that if we never looked through a telescope and discovered the supermassive black hole at the center of our galaxy, then it never would be able to eat our planet.

All the x and gamma particles that they measured with their telescopes have happened rather than collapsed and the only things affected (because they're not attached to any causation) is that they've been seen. Yes?

The energy measured by the telescopes -- the actual particles/waves that bounced onto the telescopes parabolic dish -- have been affected by the measurement. The macroscopic source of those particles hasn't, baring nonlocality weirdness, which everyone is pretty sure only happens on the subatomic scale, even if Unified Field Theory pans out.

Because otherwise they are saying that these particles have a purpose and destiny.

Particles contain information, though.

 

[xssve]

It's called nonlocality, a/k/a "spooky action at a distance." Distance matters not on the subatomic scale, as Yoda might say.

However, if you want to apply quantum mechanics "to the universe as a whole," (viewing the universe as a closed expanding subatomic system), the best place is a science fiction novel (IIRC, the universe as atom is a favorite of Poul Anderson's), or with some stoned astrophysicists.

I don't think it's distance that doesn't matter, it's time as we know it that doesn't exist.

Or, how does a particle travelling at or above the speed of light percieve time?

Break it back down to Three dimensions and all kinds of weird shit is going to happen.

 

[TE999]

I read somewhere that the universe is but a thought in the mind of a green cat.

If that's the case, let's hope a yellow mouse doesn't run by or *blip* we're gone.






(Just tryin' to bring a smidge of levity to this increasingly distorted philisophical discussion )