"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."
Possible . . . but what of ETI, provided that it exists?
Bruce Sterling writes:
Wait a minute -- in the entire 13.7 billion year history of the universe, nobody *else* ever made these "anthropic" observations about dark energy? That's a tad *egotistical,* isn't it? And these "observers" who are shortening the lifespan of the universe -- that's not "mankind," that's just eighty, ninety anthropic cosmologists, tops, right?
Ideas like this make my head spin in a most agreeable way.
9 comments:
Ughh. Strong anthropism is SO 20th century.
Does that mean misanthropy is this century's "new cool"? God, I hope not, even though it sometimes seems that way...
Quick! Somebody call Al Gore!
Chris--
Strong anthropism is SO 20th century.
I know what you mean.
This idea spins my head around also, with both how silly and absurdly intriguing it is.
It's based on a fundamentally flawed extrapolation of an aspect of quantum mechanics theory, wherein if you try to measure a particle, like a photon, it's wave function will collapse into one of two states somehow due to the process of measurement or observation on a quantum level. Or something like that.
Not being a physicist (I could play one on TV!), I don't know the exact process or terms to describe this, but I doubt very much that observation or measurement alone, from a distance, of something on the macro or cosmological level, like dark matter/energy, can possibly trigger an acceleration of collapse or aging, as the "collapse" into to one of two (wave/particle) states that are measurable only applies on the quantum level itself. As far as is known. (I could be both wrong and mistaken. Perhaps I should measure my brain to decide which of the two...)
"Looking at" (or employing various forms of scientific measurement) of _macro_ structures is not going to change the integrated nature of quantum particles and energy forms at or below the quark level that compose the macro. Bizarre idea, though.
If it were true, wouldn't that suggest that certain areas of Earth, like where humans originated in Africa, or large, long-term human populations have resided be "aging" faster than say, more remote or pristine areas on the surface of the planet? Or the visible side of the moon?
Wouldn't that violate the theory of relativity?
Of course, Einstein, OTOH, never could reconcile quantum mechanics and gravity with relativity. And then there's that odd entanglement issue, so...
(I suddenly hear a certain rotating, whirring sound emitting from the immediate vicinity of Einstein's grave...) Ha! 8^}
See also:
http://tinyurl.com/2aeg7k
http://tinyurl.com/3ca4yw
http://tinyurl.com/yrbqs8
Interactions cause energy change. It's called life.
I don't know about this. It's a heavy dose of anthropism, that's for sure. What about the theory about alien observers popping up and disappearing all over the Universe? Does that affect dark matter also?
I understand what these guys are trying to say and that's the scary part. But I'm sure their methodology is flawed.
Bruce Sterling has said everything I'd have said on the subject, except that I'd have said it in one word: "Bullshit."
Oh, come on, razor...the proper term would be either horseshit or darkshit. Wait there while I apply my hipwaders and whip out my HS detection and analysis quantum measuring stick--hmmm....Yep, just as I thought: the ideas collapsed into both wavy darkshit and particulate horseshit! Simultaneously! Wow! What a bunch of crapped out concepts...
Apologies to Mr. Zimmerman:
"Entangled up in _goo_!"
Post a Comment