• news
  • SUNDAY NOVEMBER 25 2007 8:30 AM

The Universe: You're Doing It Wrong

Submitted by _DictionaryGirl_

Edited by erin_broadley



Hey guys, I have a very important message: stop looking at the universe. No seriously, stop it. Don't engage it in a staring contest, don't glance at it sideways. Don't even watch documentaries about it on cable TV. Hell, you know what? Don't even think about the universe. You're doing it wrong, and you'll break it, and then we'll all be sorry.

My important message comes via a couple of leading theoretical cosmologists studying the effects of the quantum theory, who are currently putting forth the idea that simply by observing the reaches of distant galaxies as we have, we are willing them into existence, and by proxy their imminent destruction.

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.



This theory essentially takes Erwin Schrodinger's famous theoretical cat experiment -- the outcome of which being that, though when a cat is encased in a soundproof box he may be either dead, alive, or reciting internet memes with poor grammar, once someone decides to observe the cat, a choice of which state of being to take is forced upon the subject -- and follows it to its seemingly logical conclusion: if it works for a cat, why not for the universe?

Likewise, it is supposed now that the universe was supposed to decay at a certain rate, but by not being observed it was able to languish in uncertainty, but now that we are able to chart it and make note of its progress, it may have "reset" to its original rate of decay. Bummer.

Prof Krauss [of Case Western Reserve University] 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.



Superb. So what does this theoretical knowledge mean? What should we theoretically do? We could stop looking at the universe, dismantling our telescopes and calling the Space Station home, in the hopes that the universe will settle back into its pattern of uncertainty in the unknown. On the other hand, however -- having already found the dark energy and supermassive black holes, hasn't the theoretical damage already been done? Perhaps we should just keep looking. Maybe whatever we find next will be a cure for all that darkness and decay --as long as the next thing we force to choose existence isn't a space kraken, we theoretically couldn't do much worse.



For a while in college, _DictionaryGirl_ held this theory that, as long as she never looked at handed-back essays and final posted grades, there was as good a probability as any that she had straight As -- it was only upon observation that her GPA was forced into actualization.

  • PERMALINK
  • PRINT
  • Digg This
  • Email To A Friend
 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

Next

Comments
IDGAS

IDGAS

Jackson Heights, NY
March 2004

NOV 25, 2007 08:34 AM

I promise to no longer observe cats, the universe, or the Bush administration.

Zarth

zarth

Seattle, WA
December 2004

NOV 25, 2007 08:38 AM

Here's looking at you, kid.

SPOILERS! (Click to view)
That's an interesting article. But I cherish extreme doubts as to whether an observer's influence could actually effect macroscopic changes of that kind.

I mean, the cat knows whether it's alive or dead, even if a quark doesn't.

xazapdmytinu

xazapdmytinu

Fort Collins, CO
July 2007

NOV 25, 2007 08:40 AM

IDGAS said:
I promise to no longer observe cats, the universe, or the Bush administration.



Why wouldn't you want to observe the imminent destruction of the Bush Administration?

J24U

J24U

Danvers, MA
February 2006

NOV 25, 2007 08:45 AM

This article was a bit much for my brain on a Sunday morning after very little sleep in the past day.

Valeyard

Valeyard

Shreveport, LA
January 2005

NOV 25, 2007 08:48 AM

I thought you'd jump on this one biggrin

apesamongus

apesamongus

Atlanta, GA
July 2002

NOV 25, 2007 08:49 AM

I think the important quote in the linked article was...
"since his interpretation hinges on one of the issues at the heart of quantum theory - do you need people to do the observing?"

"Observation" is one of those words that means something completely different to a scientist (or quantum mathematician) than it does in plain English. Chances are, the cat ain't in a plain cardboard box.

sick

sick

Minneapolis, MN
June 2003

NOV 25, 2007 08:51 AM

I'm always skeptical of applying quantum mechanics at macroscopic scales.

And there wasn't really a cat. It was a thought experiment. Ein Gedankenexperiment.

You also forgot the umlaut in Schrödinger. tongue

wereduck

wereduck

I'm lost
July 2007

NOV 25, 2007 08:52 AM

Curses. I shouldn't have attended that lecture on Quantum Physics. Knowing stuff will kill us all!

fluxuation

fluxuation

Ottawa, ON
April 2005

NOV 25, 2007 08:58 AM

Look out, soon a self-help book will capitalize on this aspect of quantum physics too!

IDGAS

IDGAS

Jackson Heights, NY
March 2004

NOV 25, 2007 08:59 AM

xazapdmytinu said:

IDGAS said:
I promise to no longer observe cats, the universe, or the Bush administration.



Why wouldn't you want to observe the imminent destruction of the Bush Administration?



But what if looking stopped the imminent destruction? Besides I was lying about not watching Bush fail, I am peeking between my fingers.

StarBelliedBoy

StarBelliedBoy

Philadelphia, PA
December 2003

NOV 25, 2007 09:01 AM

None of this makes any sense to me AT ALL.

AceT

AceT

Portland, OR
April 2004

NOV 25, 2007 09:03 AM

This is such flawed logic it makes me think these professors must be bored and doing this for shits and giggles. It's complete bullshit.

Schrödinger's cat is supposed to relate how weird quantum mechanics is; showing that nothing is ever truly certain at a subatomic level, there are only percentages of what could and couldn't be. The analogy of using a cat wouldn't really work if you tried it, because the cat would have to live under the same quantum mechanics as subatomic particles do, not under classical mechanics. Cats aren't subatomic particles, and don't live under quantum mechanics, so it wouldn't work.

dingoes8

dingoes8

Milwaukee, WI
March 2004

NOV 25, 2007 09:19 AM

Isn't it giving an awful lot of inflated importance to tiny, insignificant humans by saying the fact that they observe something actually changes reality?

SoulRiver

SoulRiver

Columbus, OH
January 2005

NOV 25, 2007 09:21 AM

I heard about this Friday on NPR's Science Friday program. It seems dangerous to me to return to pre-Galileo religious dogma. Once again we feel the need to make ourselves the center of the Universe.

Ticktockman

Ticktockman

Durham, NC
April 2006

NOV 25, 2007 09:27 AM

There's no going back. The cat -- alive or dead -- is out of the box. Er, bag. The only thing we should worry about now is whether that dark matter is looking back at us, and whether we qualify as observers of our existence to whatever universal principle may govern this sort of thing.

Not the Rapture, kids, just Reset. *poof*

-TTm

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

Next

featured interviews