as if mankind is so powerful as to alter the plight of the universe

[alocispepraluger102]

d 'shortening the universe's life'

By Roger Highfield, Science Editor

Last Updated: 12:01am GMT 21/11/2007

Forget about the threat that mankind poses to the Earth: our activities may be shortening the life of the universe too.

# Parallel universe proof boosts time travel hopes

# Quantum theory and relativity explained

# Surfer Dude's Theory of Everything - The Movie

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.

The Boomerang Nebula, mankind 'shortening the universe's life'

Cosmologists claim by observing dark energy the universe has been nudged closer to its death

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.

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.

The team came to this depressing conclusion by calculating how the energy state of our universe - a kind of summation of all its particles and all their energies - has evolved since the big bang of creation 13.7 billion years ago.

Some mathematical theories suggest that, in the very beginning, there was a void that possessed energy but was devoid of substance. Then the void changed, converting energy into the hot matter of the big bang. But the team suggests that the void did not convert as much energy to matter as it could, retaining some, in the form of what we now call dark energy, which now accelerates the expansion of the cosmos.

Like the decay of a radioactive atom, such shifts in energy state happen at random and it is possible that this could trigger a new big bang. The good news is that theory suggests that the universe should remain in its current state.

advertisement

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.

In this case however, it turns out that quantum mechanics implies that if an unstable system has survived for far longer than the average such system should, then the probability that it will continue to survive decreases more slowly than it otherwise would. By resetting the clock, the survival probability would now once again fall exponentially.

"The intriguing question is this," Prof Krauss told the Telegraph. "If we attempt to apply quantum mechanics to the universe as a whole, and if our present state is unstable, then what sets the clock that governs decay? Once we determine our current state by observations, have we reset the clock? If so, as incredible as it may seem, our detection of dark energy may have reduced the life expectancy of our universe."

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. "In short, we may have snatched away the possibility of long-term survival for our universe and made it more likely it will decay," says Prof Krauss. Not all agree, since his interpretation hinges on one of the issues at the heart of quantum theory - do you need people to do the observing?

This is not the only damage to the heavens that astronomers may have caused. Our cosmos is now significantly lighter than scientists had thought after an analysis of the amount of light given out by galaxies concluded that some shone from lightweight electrons, not heavyweight atoms. In all, the new analysis suggests that the universe has lost about one fifth of its overall mass.

The discovery was made while trying to analyze clusters of galaxies - the largest cosmological structures in the universe - and is not the result of a cosmological diet but a major rethink of how to interpret x-rays produced by the clusters.

Five years ago, a team at the University of Alabama in Huntsville lead by Prof Richard Lieu reported finding large amounts of extra "soft" (relatively low-energy) x-rays coming from the vast space in the middle of galaxy clusters. Although the atoms that emitted them were thought to be spread thinly through space (less than one atom per cubit metre), they would have filled billions of billions of cubic light years.

Their cumulative mass was thought to account for as much as ten percent of the mass and gravity needed to hold together galaxies, galaxy clusters and perhaps the universe itself.

But now the team has taken a closer look at data gathered by several satellite instruments, including the Chandra X-ray Observatory and have had a major rethink about these soft X-rays, the bottom line being that this chunk of the universe should now be discounted.

The reason is that the soft x-rays thought to come from intergalactic clouds of atomic gas probably emanated from lightweight electrons instead.

If the source of so much x-ray energy is tiny electrons instead of hefty atoms, it is says the team as if billions of lights thought to come from billions of aircraft carriers were found instead to come from billions of extremely bright fireflies.

"This means the mass of these x-ray emitting clouds is much less than we initially thought it was," said Dr. Max Bonamente. Instead, they are produced by electrons travelling almost the speed of light (and therefore "relativistic").

The discovery may also change what we think is the mix of elements in the universe because these soft x rays mask the tell tale x ray emissions of iron and other metals. "This is also telling us there is fractionally more iron and other metals than we previously thought," said Bonamente. "Less mass but more metals."

Results of this research by Bonamente, Jukka Nevalainen of Finland's Helsinki Observatory and Prof Lieu have been published in the Astrophysical Journal.

The calculated mass of the universe ranges anywhere from 10 to the power of 53 kg to 10 to the power of 60 kg and is complicated by the fact that there is invisible matter we cannot see, called dark matter.

Information appearing on telegraph.co.uk is the copyright of Telegraph Media Group Limited and must not be reproduced in any medium without licence. For the full copyright statement see Copyright

Edited November 26, 2007 by alocispepraluger102

[Jazzmoose]

What a pile of shit. The article, I mean. I've seen better science writing from junior high school students. You know, the dumb ones.

[alocispepraluger102]

a pile of balderdash.

[MoGrubb]

I probably don't fully comprehend what these geniuses are carrying on about, but, it appears that just because they measure time, on our end, that it has the effect of shortening the actual time/life (cycle?) of the universe, some how or other. Wtf?

Talk about smoke & mirrors. I certainly hope the universe doesn't accommodate their theory.

Edited November 26, 2007 by MoGrubb

[alocispepraluger102]

I probably don't fully comprehend what these geniuses are carrying on about, but, it appears that just because they measure time, on our end, that it has the effect of shortening the actual time/life (cycle?) of the universe, some how or other. Wtf?

Talk about smoke & mirrors. I certainly hope the universe doesn't accommodate their theory.

"Incredible as it seems, our detection of the dark energy may have reduced the life-expectancy of the universe," Prof Krauss tells New Scientist.

[J Larsen]

This isn't quite as far fetched as it might sound; Google "Bell's Inequality" (or "Bell's Theorem" or "Bell Experiment") for example.

NB: John Bell is one guy who should really have won a Nobel prize; it is shocking to me that he was overlooked.

[JSngry]

What if the coyote would never look down?

What if Adam & Eve would have never opened their eyes?

[J Larsen]

What if the coyote would never look down?

What if Adam & Eve would have never opened their eyes?

The point isn't that nothing can happen if nothing is observed. The point is that the act of observation can alter the course of future events. This has been proved beyond any reasonable doubt through Bell's Experiments and subsequent, similar experiments of greater sophistication.

As the article correctly points out, a crucial open question is "what constitutes an observation?" I tend to take a far more broad view of what constitutes an observation than what Krause takes, but I must admit that this is based on my own personal bias and not on scientific evidence.

In any event, I think the article must have somewhat distorted the views of Krause (who is a well-respected physicist), as the article makes it sound like the evolution of a system subsequent to observation is deterministic, which no one has ever claimed. What really happens is the probabilities of future events are altered (the exception is if one performs continuous measurements, which is not the case here).

In other words, at most we increased the probability of the demise of the universe in 1998.

[MoGrubb]

What if the coyote would never look down?

What if Adam & Eve would have never opened their eyes?

The point isn't that nothing can happen if nothing is observed. The point is that the act of observation can alter the course of future events. This has been proved beyond any reasonable doubt through Bell's Experiments and subsequent, similar experiments of greater sophistication.

As the article correctly points out, a crucial open question is "what constitutes an observation?" I tend to take a far more broad view of what constitutes an observation than what Krause takes, but I must admit that this is based on my own personal bias and not on scientific evidence.

In any event, I think the article must have somewhat distorted the views of Krause (who is a well-respected physicist), as the article makes it sound like the evolution of a system subsequent to observation is deterministic, which no one has ever claimed. What really happens is the probabilities of future events are altered (the exception is if one performs continuous measurements, which is not the case here).

In other words, at most we increased the probability of the demise of the universe in 1998.

So, the universe suffers from "stage fright?" Our watching it turns it into a "shrinking violet," maybe? *gasp*

Everybody, quick, close your eyes!!

[Jazzmoose]

In any event, I think the article must have somewhat distorted the views of Krause ...

Ya think?

[J Larsen]

So, the universe suffers from "stage fright?"

I suppose you could look at it that way, if you take a very narrow view of what constitutes an observation, as Krause does.

I personally take a very broad view - I am inclined to believe that "observation", in the quantum mechanical sense, does not require conciousness (this is indeed the view historically taken by the overwhelming majority if physicists, with Wigner being a notable exception). But it turns out to be very difficult to design an experiment to determine which view is correct, so this is really a matter of personal bias and speculation.

In any event, it bears noting that statistically speaking it is extraoridinarily unlikely for any macroscopic object to be in a superposition of states, so pratically speaking this is much ado about nothing.

Edited November 26, 2007 by J Larsen

[RDK]

What if the coyote would never look down?

What if Adam & Eve would have never opened their eyes?

The point isn't that nothing can happen if nothing is observed. The point is that the act of observation can alter the course of future events. This has been proved beyond any reasonable doubt through Bell's Experiments and subsequent, similar experiments of greater sophistication.

As the article correctly points out, a crucial open question is "what constitutes an observation?" I tend to take a far more broad view of what constitutes an observation than what Krause takes, but I must admit that this is based on my own personal bias and not on scientific evidence.

In any event, I think the article must have somewhat distorted the views of Krause (who is a well-respected physicist), as the article makes it sound like the evolution of a system subsequent to observation is deterministic, which no one has ever claimed. What really happens is the probabilities of future events are altered (the exception is if one performs continuous measurements, which is not the case here).

In other words, at most we increased the probability of the demise of the universe in 1998.

So, the universe suffers from "stage fright?" Our watching it turns it into a "shrinking violet," maybe? *gasp*

Everybody, quick, close your eyes!!

Sounds more like a "shy bladder" to me.

[Jazzmoose]

In any event, it bears noting that statistically speaking it is extraoridinarily unlikely for any macroscopic object to be in a superposition of states, so pratically speaking this is much ado about nothing.

Exactly. The idea that the problems of observation, uncertainly, etc. translate directly from the atomic level to the universe level is as goofy as (forgive me, unnamed poster) a certain posters assertion that the second law of thermodynamics proves that evolution doesn't exist. It's taking a scientific idea from one situation and applying it to a situation where it has no bearing.

[J Larsen]

The second law argument is simply wrong. The application of quantum mechanical principles to macroscopic objects in and of itself isn't wrong in principle, but one needs to be very careful. Macroscopic superpositions have been observed, but only in special laboratory situations (and only for devices like SQUIDS that can barely be considered macroscopic). Also, I believe some researchers have been able to do single and double slit experiments with buckyballs.

[J Larsen]

As expected, Krauss claims to have been deeply misconstrued by New Scientist (which I don't find to be a very good source for anything, frankly):

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/11...orten-univ.html

[Jazzmoose]

The second law argument is simply wrong. The application of quantum mechanical principles to macroscopic objects in and of itself isn't wrong in principle, but one needs to be very careful. Macroscopic superpositions have been observed, but only in special laboratory situations (and only for devices like SQUIDS that can barely be considered macroscopic). Also, I believe some researchers have been able to do single and double slit experiments with buckyballs.

So you would go along with my theory that the entire universe might be a bit too large?

[J Larsen]

I think it is extraordinarily unlikely for the universe to be in a superposition of states. I remember as an undergrad being asked on an exam to come up with a rough estimate of the probability of leaning against a wall and rematerializing on the other side. I recall the time scale for this event being something like a million times the age of the universe.