Posted on 11/23/2007 3:45:30 AM PST by Rb ver. 2.0
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.
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 boggling mind 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 interpetation (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. 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.
advertisement
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.
What I want to know is who the heck looked up and saw the first liberal? That dude brought all these libs into existence and needs a serious a**-kicking!
With so many pseudo-scientists flailing about, the key question is NOT: "Why is everybody going crazy?"
The key question is: "Why is anybody still sane?"
In some ways, it is comforting to know the universe is facing imminent destruction. It takes the pressure off worrying about picking up milk and toilet paper on the way home from work.
Does this universe make me look fat?
I can’t believe that this claptrap was in a legitimate newspaper in the UK. Is this from the London Daily Telegraph?
Remember when you stop to get more toilet paper, that only one square per toilet visit is to be used according to the enviro wackos.
I think that the universe will only implode on conservatives. I think that liberals will be exempt from any of this because the universe knows they are so enlightened.
“The elements will melt with a fervent heat...”
Just come by the Undead Thread sometime.
As George Will once said, "the sun around which Earth orbits is one of perhaps 400 billion stars in the Milky Way, which is a piddling galaxy next door to nothing much. There are perhaps 40 billion galaxies in the still-unfolding universe".
We can't make an automobile or a plane that is guaranteed not to crash, or a house that is guaranteed not to go up in flames, or a medicine that is guaranteed to heal everyone and cause the death of no one, but we can change the climate and alter the universe? What kind of person is dumb enough to believe this garbage?
We are vapors; we are fragile, temporary residents of a place created by a Person who spoke this earth into existence and can speak it into oblivion. The narcissism is mind-boggling.
Next: “Universe huggers” will declare that we need to blind our children the moment they are born.
And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the Spirit of His mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of His coming.
Now matter how you look at it, Schrödinger's cat is dead.
every time you explore the univers a smurf dies.
please ignorance is strenght don’t question global warming.
algore loves you.
If we buy visual credits from Al gore, we can all be saved.
Yeah, what YOU said! ;o)
I’ve had that same thought myself!
Maybe @@^/ ?
looks like a flounder.
You know, I remember vaguely having read this same story of the beginning of the Universe somewhere else, only without the words "Big Bang" at the end.
the object can stop changing - just as a watched kettle never boils.
Whoever gave this author his science credentials should revoke them immediately, by violence if necessary. What a screeching, drooling moron. A watched pot will boil as much as an unwatched pot will boil.
Put a timer on the watched and unwatched pots, then watch one and not the other. Both will boil, but because you're watching the one, subjectively it seems like the pot takes forever. IT WILL HOWEVER, BOIL.
Yeah, yeah, I know my science is oldthink. Quantum physics is complicated enough, and mysterious enough, that it enables the bizarro world view of the morons of the left, who apparently still believe in magic - "If I watch something, it will change it". My favorite sports teams seem unaffected by this thinking, no matter how much I watch. Of course, if you subscribe to "my watching them destroys them", you may be onto something.
These people are frighteningly stupid.
First off, one guesses this scientist has dismissed a diety as a potential ‘observer’. ;-)
I’m guessing some other species made the same observation a week before we did - so we’re off the hook. lol
Oh, so now even mere allegations are "damaging"... /grin
The "New Scientist" - where junk science meets remedial English.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.