Carbon Footprint?
Don’t make me laugh. You aren’t even in the game if you aren’t shortening the life of the Universe:
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.
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.
OK, here’s the deal. You guys stop observing the the damn dark energy, we’ll lose the cars.
But I don’t know. Kind of makes me want to go get a telescope. Mount it on a turbo-charged V-8 … Mustang. Maybe a Hummer. Or a 747. Fly around and look at stuff. Get it over with.
Topics: science
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 10:43 pm on Friday, November 23, 2007
8 Responses to “Carbon Footprint?”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
November 23rd, 2007 at 11:39 pm
Must be some really good $#;+ they are smoking.
November 24th, 2007 at 1:39 am
Don’t tell anyone, but it is really the evil death-rays that women emit through their hair.
We complain about what has gone on in the humanities departments of our universities (that Brit “historian” who doesn’t know history, for instance). Philosophy is a part of humanities, and the anti-rational cancer that has destroyed the humanities has made it into the sciences.
You cannot simply say that philosophy is hogwash (which modern philosophy certainly is) and ignore it. Philosophy is primarily the science of the nature of existence and of man’s knowledge and as such, what you accept as the foundation of knowledge affects all knowledge. While you may recognize the facts of reality, if your philosophy is wrong, the interpretations you place on those facts will be wrong. We are now seeing the results of this fact in not only the humanities, but in the hard sciences as well. Such is the power of philosophy.
What a shame that so much brain power–and money–has been spent on this nonsense. These people can’t seem to decide if we are powerless in the face of the universe, or so powerful that we are capable of its destruction.
November 24th, 2007 at 3:38 am
The universe has lived long enough! Get with the program, universe, or we’ll snuff you out.
November 24th, 2007 at 6:44 am
Plants “observe” too when they intercept light to do their chlorophyll thing. I’m pretty sure the only way to save the universe is to eradicate all life on this planet.
November 24th, 2007 at 9:32 am
“mind-boggling experiments, notably Schrodinger’s cat in which, thanks to a fancy experimental set up, the moggy is both alive and dead”
Starting with a dead cat simplifies the set up a bit…. just a thought.
“until someone decides to look, when it either carries on living, or dies.”
I get these kind of looks accompanied by a deterministic wavefunction all of the time. Luckily for me, one can’t call my life living.
November 24th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
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…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.
I didn’t think “dark matter/energy” had been either observed OR measured.
Only hypothesized.
So maybe we’re still ok :)
(are these people insane ?)
(my watched kettles boil all the time)
November 24th, 2007 at 1:24 pm
I know that when physicists look at particles, they change the particle. Or so says the math language they use to describe the process. Personally, I don’t think that applies to conglomerates like a universe, but what do I know? I’m not a physicist.
November 24th, 2007 at 2:32 pm
I love how the author describes the “Schrodinger’s cat” experiment. He makes it sound as if those dastardly scientists are actually killing cats with their “mind-boggling” experiments!
It’s also funny how he characterizes their findings as “damaging allegations,” as if it was a political or business scandal of some sort. Can a George Bush tie-in be far behind? Bush lied, the universe died!