Who understands quantum theory? Can you explain this article to me?

[The Backlash Cometh]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/11/21/scicosmos121.xml&CMP=ILC-mostviewedbox

Mankind '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.

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.


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.

[acmavm]

1. Whoa! So the gist is that simply because we started looking around the

cosmos to see how things worked we knocked something off kilter and it has had a bad 'effect' on the universe and how it holds together?

Seriously, this stuff (any form of physics) is fascinating but I'm not intellectually gifted enough to understand all it's rules, dos, don'ts, and exceptions to the rules.

[The Backlash Cometh]

10. I don't understand how our observation creates two time lines.

One with a dead cat in it, and the other with a live cat. How can our observation, from trillions and trillions of galaxies away, make a difference? That's sounds just a wee bit arrogant. Like a sugar ant deciding the fate of the Milky Way.

Now, if a virus had intellectual thought, I could certainly understand how it could wipe out life on this planet, if A) it recognized us as a threat; and B) it could change its form to create deadly plagues, but, how can we change the course of the universe if A) we can't reach the end of the universe? and B) we would never intentionally wish to bring it to an end?

[acmavm]

18. The way I took it to mean is that it's comparable to what can be jokingly

referred to as a disturbance in the 'force'. That our intrusion into the realm of dark matter created that disturbance. But I'll be damned if I can even begin to figure out what for the 'disturbance' takes.

[Selatius]

2. I honestly doubt we know enough about the universe to draw such a conclusion.

Sit on it for a couple thousand years until we have the technology to travel the stars.

[The Backlash Cometh]

11. Exactly.

[MilesColtrane]

3. It's an article by a scientifically illiterate reporter.

He's implying that sub-atomic quantum effects extend to the larger universe, and reaching a ludicrous conclusion.

[The Backlash Cometh]

12. Thanks. I was hoping someone would come up with the specific

flaw in the reasoning.

[SidDithers]

22. Exactly...

and you said it much more succinctly that I was going to :)

Sid

[Trillo]

51. Can you name the "reporter" that you claim is "scientifically illiterate"?

I'll give you a hint: The possible answers seem to be Dent, Highfield, or Krauss.

[MilesColtrane]

52. OK...

So Highfield has several degrees and has functioned as a research scientist.

He's worse than scientifically illiterate if he knows just how ephemeral this "theory" is, yet sensationalizes it with a lead like, "...our activities may be shortening the life of the universe..."

So, IF the mathematical model referred to by Highfield is wrong ( he tells us the theory suggests no change in the state of the universe), and IF quantum effects could be attributed to the macro-verse ( the Zeno effect appears only in systems with distinguishable quantum states, and hence is inapplicable to classical phenomena and macroscopic bodies) THEN maybe our observation in 2006 will shorten the life of the universe.

I'm not sure how this could ever proven correct, even if someone were around to observe the end of the universe. Who's to say, that it didn't end when it was going to without human "interference"? Anybody got a "control universe" for this experiment?

Well IF the theory of evolution is wrong, and IF unexplained phenomena could be attributed to a giant invisible guy in the sky, THEN maybe we were all created out of cosmic kitty litter.

I'll suggest a new topic for Mr. Highfield's next article, "You may all be living in a molecule of toe cheese in an immense English soccer star!"

[Trillo]

54. Unless it's misquoted, that sensational lead was attributed to Krauss.

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

Just sayin'. I did wonder if you meant the professor, since he could be construed as a "reporter" of sorts.

I would venture a guess, non-scientific as it is, that what state dark matter is in is a big, open question, at least publicly so. Perhaps, in a world where open publication of scientific research may be suppressed for any threat that may be perceived by the corporatist, then it is not so unreasonable for an outsider looking in to wonder if the big mystery of 'dark matter' is all a ruse.

In any case, I would think part of a reporter's job would be to report on the news in their field, regardless of their beliefs regarding merit.

[annabanana]

4. Maybe the expansion of the Universe is a BAD thing...

And only Understanding can bring the whole thing back together?

http://deferentialgeometry.org/anim/e8rotation.mov

[The Backlash Cometh]

19. I'm still getting a handle on the article that showed up on DU

about the guy who came up with the theory of the universe using a three part model which showed how the universe moves like a kaledescope of currents. Meaning, we are making the wrong conclusions about our universe if we think that everything is in a big bang free fall. We may see the universe expanding now, but it will eventually look like it's imploding, then expanding again. Sort of like currents in the ocean, or better yet, like trying to make sense of how lungs work if you've never seen one before, and if time was infinitely slower for you than real time. Imagine if time nearly stopped, and you see the lung rising, you might conclude that the lung will keep expanding until it finally explodes. Until you see it exhale, then you might think it's collapsing, but you'll never understand that that there's a pattern to the movement, until you see it rise again.

[Rock_Garden]

37. This theory makes a great deal of sense, and you said it perfectly.

[annabanana]

5. Maybe it's another shot at Scientific Inquiry. . . . . .n/t

[MonkeyFunk]

6. It means they opened the box

and the cat was dead.

[NoPasaran]

56. Somehow or other, Clinton will get the blame.

After all these centuries, Pandora is finally off the hook.

[scarletwoman]

7. ...and that's why we can never have nice things.

[The Backlash Cometh]

20. LOL!

[Botany]

8. In short ...

Just by observing something you change "it" but in ways that can
not be measured and everything in the universe is linked
together because everything started from the same point
aka "The Big Bang."

This is still theoretical "stuff"... along the lines of "how many
angels can dance on the head of pin?"



This is also why theoretical physicists are great @ cocktail parties and
when people are smoking dope but not worth much when the garage
door opener is stuck.

BTW This does not need you do not have to pay your gas bill too.
:rofl:

[soothsayer]

9. Feh, just quantum silliness! And incredible ego to think that human

observation changes anything. Guess the earth is still the center of the universe to some!

[The Backlash Cometh]

21. Precisely what I was thinking.

[Snarkoleptic]

13. I read a mind-bending article about research on a quantum memory chip.

The chip contains sub-atomic particles and has the ability to double the normal amout of storage.
The doubling is achieved because these particles can simultaneously hold a zero and a one value (on and off).
The odd part is that, under observation, it can only hold one value or the other.

Makes you wonder about the tree falling in the forest making/not making a sound if there's no observer, huh?

[The Backlash Cometh]

23. Under observation...

You mean, under our bi-optic observation which depends which side of the brain dominates?

[Joanne98]

14. According to Quantum theory you can change things by observing them

They have proven this in tests with sub-atomic particles. This is a very interesting theory. I don't know about changing the nature of dark energy. Nobody even knows what it's made of and it's pretty big. You would think it's hard to change the nature of big stuff!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basics_of_quantum_mechanics

[ThomWV]

26. I think the Heisenburg (sp?) uncertainty principal predates quantum theory

Mid to late 1920's if I recall correctly.

[Snarkoleptic]

29. Here's more on quantum computing. Wow!

http://www.trnmag.com/Stories/2003/022603/Quantum_computing_catches_the_bus_022603.html
The key to quantum computers' potential is that qubits in superposition can represent every possible answer to a problem at the same time, allowing the computer to check all the answers with one set of operations. Quantum computers containing thousands of qubits would be able to solve problems that have so many possibilities it would take today's computers longer than the life of the universe to check them all serially.

In the nearest-neighbor quantum computer architectures that could be improved by the NIST scheme, neighboring qubits become entangled in order to pass along information during logic operations. The bus qubits in the researchers' scheme don't carry information directly, but become entangled to form a communications channel.

When distant memory qubits A and B need to interact, "one creates a chain of... entangled pairs of bus qubits between A and B using nearest-neighbor interactions," Brennan said. In a second step, entanglement swapping, the ends of the chain are entangled with each other, Brennan said. Qubits A and B can communicate by having qubit A interact with the bus qubit at one end of the chain and B interact with the bus qubit at the other end of the chain. "The effect is the same as if A and B interacted directly," he said.

[kansasblue]

15. looking at dark matter far way screws with it......

basically I read that dark matter is affected by us looking at it. Lots of thoughts come to mind. If we are not alone in the universe maybe someone else looked at it too. It would seem the theory would be a little too 'humans control all'. Sort of like washing your car causes it to rain.

Expect the extraterrestrials to show up and tell us to stop looking at dark matter cause we are screwing with the universe.

On the other had the fact that the universe exists at all means some really cool stuff had to happen somewhere. And who knows the rules of continued existence may just be very fragile.

[porphyrian]

16. Maybe we are ultimately responsible for the Big Bang. -n/t

[The Backlash Cometh]

25. I think that's what creationist want us to believe.

[porphyrian]

33. No, creationists want us to believe it's all God's plan.

They don't think about anything enough to realize the paradox in believing we have free will and that everything has been made just so by God at the same time. I was referring to the Shroedinger's Cat-type suggestion that our observation of the universe may be hastening its demise. If this is true, and it is hardly a fact at this point, I offered my own fantastical speculation that we may ultimately be responsible for the Big Bang that created our universe, as it is also fantastically possible that the end of the universe and the Big Bang are one in the same. I wasn't spreading any creationist bullshit, thank you.

Edit: omitted "made" for no apparent reason

[The Backlash Cometh]

40. Ah. Thanks for the correction.

[porphyrian]

45. It wasn't really a correction, it was an explanation of what I said.

I didn't change anything.

[The Backlash Cometh]

47. Yes, but you corrected my first observation, thereby changing things.

[bemildred]

17. It is inaccurate to say "we change things simply by looking at them".

It is nearer accurate to say "when you look you create an observation". And of course, all we know scientifically speaking comes from observations. And real cats do not behave like quantum particles. This sort of thing is what happens when you get wrapped up in your own verbiage and ignore vast differences in scale.

* -- This is all just my amateur opinion.

[Lint Head]

24. It's the old 'tree of knowledge' thing. It goes back to Gilgamesh

and Adam and Eve. This is a subversive way to say that we don't want to learn too much about existence because it would upset the 'creation' or the 'universe'. Bite the fruit of the 'tree of knowledge' and you will be exposed and eventually destroyed.
I think this reporter, or maybe this magazine and e-magazine has an agenda but not an obvious one.
This reporter has Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and Benny Hinn in their back pocket somewhere.
They are afraid that science will prove that God does not exist. Existence science is so beyond human understanding that we will be extinct as a species before we can know the answer. :dem;

[The Backlash Cometh]

27. I missed that one. Surely the agenda of the writer should be questioned.

I just assumed that they were reporting on something that was supported in the scientific community.

[Waya]

30. God and Science...............

They are afraid that science will prove that God does not exist..........

The endless debate about God vs. Science. So tedious, really. Maybe 'God' is the ultimate quantum observervation tool, so to speak. Maybe that's what the big secret is, who knows. Everything has the potential to be either/or - and not until it is observed by something or someone does it determine which it is gonna be......... Hey, it's as believable as the Creation of the Universe by a God who has human qualities and made Man out of mud and Woman out of the Man's rib, huh?

[Blackhatjack]

28. Did you ever consider .... It might be the method of observing that changes things?

It is a given that you cannot 'visually observe' an object with the naked eye if it is in total darkness(lies in area devoid of light).

However, it is equally true that if an object is 'exposed' to light, it will forever be 'changed' even if the 'change' that takes place is so small as to be imperceptible to all our human senses.

It may be that the 'act of observing' is misunderstood as the catalyst for change when in fact it is 'the method employed to observe' that results in the 'changed' integrity of the object observed.

(You could make the same argument for any of the unexaggerated human senses we employ).

And when we used methods to exaggerate the natural senses, the 'change' may have also been exaggerated from the use of those methods.

[The Backlash Cometh]

31. Some things come to mind...

What you say certainly reminds me of all those ET style movies which paint the scientist as the threat because of the scientist's desire to open up and examine every new organism he discovers. Certainly the scalpel will bring to light what was once in darkness, but destroy the patient on the operating table in the process.

So, what kind of equipment are we using to observe these dark masses in outer space? Laser telescopes? Would not surprise me in the least.

[Blackhatjack]

34. Intuitive observational techniques ....

For example, it was long thought that 'space' was characterized by definition which required that an absolute vaccum exist.

Of course today we know that space is not 'empty' and therefore 'an absolute vacuum' does not exist --and yet space has not been eliminated.

Scientists often measure the 'existence' of physical characteristics by the 'absence' of certain 'observable data.' Common example is spectography, where the temperature of a star is measured on a scale analogous to its location on a color continuum. So if certain colors are 'missing' then the temperature is measured as 'hotter' or 'colder' depending on the location of that color on the color continuum.

So when it comes to 'what kind of equipment are we using to observe these dark masses in outer space?" the answer lies in identifying observable characteristics which are either 'present or missing' and intuiting the 'existence or non-existence' of dark matter.

[The Backlash Cometh]

38. That makes sense. We are seeing beyond the limitations of the hardware,

by applying deductive reasoning to that which we can see.

[L. Coyote]

32. Simply, humans are the center of the universe, the end all and be all, the only thing that matters

Seriously, looks like a pile of horse or bull waste!

[MannyGoldstein]

35. Feynman And Einstein Say...

Richard Feynman, who won a Nobel Prize in Phsysics for his work in Quantum Mechanics, said that if anyone tells you they understand Quantum Mechanics, then they are lying. Quantum Mechanics is a series of equations that correctly predict strange observations of very tiny things - but it doesn't actually make any sense.

Because Quantum Mechanics doesn't make sense, Einstein thought that it was not a good theory - he absolutely agreed that it correctly predicted the observable world, but that it would eventually be replaced with a better theory that made sense.

[PATRICK]

36. It does seem

to boil down to actual relationships between matter and energy and the forces binding them. Rather than mystify "awareness" or observation as some paranormal return to the magical understanding of everything one has to be more aware of process.

The attractions, such as gravity and other forces are described, in a spin between anthropomorphic projection and harmonious analogies, are described as proto-intelligence or intelligence as primal energy.
The huge swath between the Big Bang and the brain that can encompass the process of the Big bang and then go about observing it has been cherry picked again for this startling new point of view. Imagination has conquered all without doing much except to send various man made energy streams smoking out beyond our planetary confines. It is indeed these, if they have any consequence beyond stirring insignificant waters, that would affect the intelligent races of the universe, likely as objects of compassion or entertainment.

Logically there are other "intelligent" races far ahead of our learning curve, a matter of universal ridicule for simian foolery. Such theories need outside observers themselves to make any sense of and in this case I suspect the sense would be high comedy.

[hlthe2b]

39. Chuckle, chuckle... maybe we should go ask the Freepers!

Can you imagine them discussing anything so academic? LOL

I just find the contrast in range of subjects discussed on DU versus FR and some of those other sites to be one of hilarity.

[CanSocDem]

41. To oversimplify...

...it means that your perception figures profoundly in your reality.

Youtube has several video's on the subject.


.

[Basileus Basileon]

42. New Scientist is trash, and this is evidence.

First of all, he's misinterpreting quantum effects. It's not quite that observing something changes it. Rather, things at the quantum level exist not as certainties, but as probabilities. When you observe something, you "force it to decide." There's nothing magical about human eyesight that changes anything.

Secondly, he's misunderstanding Schrödinger's Cat. It is an analogy. The cat is in a black box, and a device with a 50-50 chance to poison the beast has either gone off or it hasn't. The cat is not actually both alive and dead. The cat is actually either alive or either dead. However, there is no way for any observer to know whether the cat is alive or dead. The cat can be treated as a probability wave; it must be considered equally alive and dead. Once we observe it, we know if it is alive or dead, and it stays that way forever. Looking at it didn't magically kill it or bring it to life, it simply pinned it down.

Finally, he's grossly misapplying quantum effects to the universal scale.

[The Backlash Cometh]

43. Thanks for clarifying the cat theory.

[Blackhatjack]

44. A more appropriate example for DUers ....

Polling to determine how all voters in a set will vote in a general election.

You take a set of voters made up of partisan Democrats, partisan Republicans, and others who are neither partisan Dems or partisan Repubs.

For purposes of this example, you assume partisan Dems will vote for a Democratic nominee, and partisan Repubs will vote for a Repub nominee. So you ask questions to identify and eliminate both groups leaving you with the 'others.'

Once 'others' are identified, you know the percentage of all voters they make up in the set of voters sampled --but without further investigation they have the 'potential' to vote for one of several candidates --the DEM or REPUB or a third party candidate. Until examined further they have the 'potential' to vote for any one of the alternatives. However, once you frame your questions you can deduce which candidate they are likely to vote for. But it all depends on how you frame the questions as to the result you get. THerefore the questions used influence the results you get in 'using' the poll to determine the outcome.

Same applies in observing the state of quantum level entities. They have the 'potential' to occupy one of several positions, but until you examine them you cannot determine which position they actually occupy and the method(ie. like polling questions) used influences the observable outcome when you focus on the them.

So the fact we know that 'others'(non-Dems, non-Repubs, possible Independents/Undecideds and Unaffiliated voters) exists means they have the 'potential' at any given moment to vote in any of several different ways when the event occurs where they have to vote for only one candidate. We create that event by forcing them to answer in response to a polling question, but the use of the polling question itself 'affects' the ultimate decision(similar to the effect 'observing' has on the quantum entity).

Does that make it clearer or just more murky?

[opihimoimoi]

46. Its a Pub Plot to confuse our already confused Peeps...its moot minutiae Distraction

Move on to Solutions ...something those Pubs haven't a damn clue on how to deal with....

[The Backlash Cometh]

48. Sure. I understand the effects of push polling.

And in social dynamics, it certainly appears to have the effect of ending the universe as we know it. :-) Same thing as the article in regards to quantum dynamics and human observation.

[Blackhatjack]

49. Consider... If....

You conduct a poll today and force a decision today, that same outcome may be different on election day Nov 2008.

THat really is the conundrum presented by superposition quantum dynamics.

Our method of observation and timing of the application 'forces' an outcome at that particular moment, but does little to predict the 'outcome' into the future.

And that is why 'observation' does not 'change' but rather 'forces' an outcome at a particular time of observation.

[The Backlash Cometh]

50. I can clearly see how forcing an outcome today might limit our

options in the future. That's basically what's happening when the media already annoints a specific candidate.

In the area of quantum theory and the universe, however, I can see what changes is OUR perception of the universe, and certainly it might alter how we go about studying it; but as long as distance remains a barrier which we cannot breach, the universe may be able to survive being misunderstood. I'm hoping.

[CanSocDem]

53. "Forcing an outcome"......

...should be as effective tomorrow as it is today. Think if, those mindful powers of observation were available or rather KNOWN to be 'available', every time one opened his or her eyes.....

Would most people see only good things....??? And more importantly, why wouldn't they...???


.

[The Backlash Cometh]

60. In my observation...

People define "good" in different ways. "Good" for whom? Good for the individual? Good for the common good?

If space exploration were a capitalist venture, can't you see how "good," might be interpreted in a self-serving way to benefit the first group who gets to observe the phenomenon?

If there was a consistent application of common goodness and objectivity applied to these observations, then, yes, I could see how goodness today would be consistent with goodness tomorrow. But that's not how venture capitalists work.

[Uncle Joe]

55. I believe the universe is a giant expanding impregnated uterus and we're just a developing fetus,

all of that dark matter is the placenta holding everything together. The rocky planets such as Earth were the barren eggs, the comets and asteroids bringing life giving compounds and frozen water served as the sperm cells. I thought at one time the black holes were birth canals, but someone recently reported a giant hole in the galaxy so maybe that's it. If this hypothesis is true, everything is connected in one form or another.

[The Backlash Cometh]

61. I think we're turning out to be more like a uterine cast, than a baby.

[madeline_con]

57. It sounds like existentialism wrapped in an enigma, wrapped in

a whole lot of butterfly theory crap. The universe moves closer to its death everyday, regardless of our actions. I move closer to mine, and you're in the world. That doesn't mean you contribute to it. :eyes:

[The Backlash Cometh]

62. Yes, it does seem like quite a bit of philosophy is being applied

to a scientific theory. But, I think saying that we, as human beings, don't have any effect on bringing each other closer to death, I would disagree. We do have an effect on each other's well being, though in America it's a lost cause because of the individualism that this country pushes.

There are so many overtones of hatred towards each other, that no church, or no pushing us all to church, is going to ever overcome them, and standing up to pledge the flag to prove we love our country, isn't the same thing as standing up and prove we love our countrymen.

So, what I'm saying is, that distance does matter.

[Rex]

58. We change the state of matter by 'observing' something we didn't know.

beforehand. And that instantly leads to entropy and not equilibrium?

Riiiigght...unicorns and dragons...I just saw em. Hernest.

[muriel_volestrangler]

59. I think the New Scientist press release explains it a lot better

and ends by explaining the objection to this idea better, too:

Building on a discovery made in the 1950s, Krauss’s calculations show that if the universe did happen to hold out past a certain threshold, its chance of staying stable are substantially increased. In 1958, Russian physicist L. Khalfin discovered that after an extremely long time, the probability of a quantum system having survived stops falling exponentially and switches to a slower rate of decline. This means that if the false vacuum of the universe survives to the switching point between the two rates, it will effectively become eternal. This is because the false vacuum is known to grow exponentially fast, and past the switching point it will be created faster than it can be eaten away by any decay, he says.

According to Krauss, the smaller the energy gap between the false vacuum and zero, the earlier the switching point between the two rates. And - surprise, surprise - we live in a universe where the vacuum energy is just above zero, so we could be well past the crucial switching point.

At first glance, this seems like good news for us because it would mean our universe is on track to survive forever. However, things may not be as good as they seem, Krauss says. At the quantum level, whenever we observe or measure something, we reset its clock and stop it decaying - something known as the quantum Zeno effect. Our measurement of the light from supernovae in 1998, which provided evidence of dark energy, may have reset the false vacuum’s decay clock to zero - back to a point when the likelihood of its surviving was falling exponentially over time. “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 Krauss.

Krauss’s claim is controversial. Max Tegmark of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology maintains that the quantum Zeno effect does not require humans to make observations of light. “Galaxies have ‘observed’ the dark energy long before we evolved,” he says, as they were affected by it and were encoding information about it. “When we humans in turn observe the light from these galaxies, it changes nothing except our own knowledge.”

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-11/ns-hws112107.php

(That's the end of the press release - read the whole thing, from the start, for it to make the best sense possible).

The claim that our observations affect the universe depends (a) on thinking there is something special about a conscious observer making an observation, rather than just another object - a few people do hold that consciousness is special in quantum theory, but not many do, and (b) that mankind is the only species to have ever consciously observed dark matter, in the whole history of the whole universe. I wonder if any scientists hold both of those beliefs simultaneously.

[The Backlash Cometh]

63. That's what I'm sayin...

Well, that's how I would have said it if my IQ was at least 50 points higher and I actually studied quantum theory.