Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Beyond Ludicrous
Political Topics And Discussion > All Things Political > Political News
Nomad
QUOTE
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.

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.

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.


This is not science, it is theoretical BS from paid charlatons. Paid by the the institutions of so called "higher learning".

It's no wonder that there have been no new scientific advances in the last 50 years. Any new advances have been built upon previous technology. Einstein only got it part right. E=MC2 works but that is where it ends. 60 years later every theoretical physicist is still trying to build on the failed theory of relativity.

However in todays' scientific community one must conform to the majority dead end approach. Not conforming will result in no funds and ostracism from the so called "main stream scientific community".

Scientific advancement is now dead. And as a result the progress of humanity is dead as well.

034.gif 034.gif 034.gif 035.gif 035.gif 035.gif 033.gif 033.gif 033.gif
Grizzly
This is really a fascinating subject, Nomad. Thanks.

I remember reading a book, by Michael Talbot, entitled, The Holographic Universe. One of things that scientists found was that the properties of light can change when studied from a subatomic point of view. Just when you thought that light was wavelength, it changed to particles instead just by observing and wondering about the ordeal. And just when you thought it was particles, it changed to a wavelength.

The only thing that scientists could figure out was it was the observer changing the properties of the light.

You can read more about the book here.
Nomad
QUOTE
The only thing that scientists could figure out was it was the observer changing the properties of the light.
Now Grizz, give this some thought will ya........ How can simply looking at something change its' physical properties?????? Wouldn't it be more rational to believe that we have no fkin idea what light is and as it is further examined the properties of this physical entity continue to elude the mainstream scientific community because they are stuck in an Einsteinian box. The universe as we know it cannot be explained by the theory of relativity. There is more, much more. that awaits discovery.

What really suprises me here is that we have found some common ground.

008.gif 008.gif 008.gif
Fit2BThaied
We may pollute everything we touch in the universe, but I'll agree with Nomad that to us mere mortals with human senses, it seems absurd that a thing changes merely because we looked at it. Especially something 29 trillion light years away, something bigger than 498 galaxies. My numbers may be off by a few magnitudes, but it's more likely that the entire universe known to humanity is just a subatomic particle on a virus that's 298,989,989,389,000 light years wide.
Grizzly
First and foremost gang, this is all about theories--nothing but theories.
A theory is still something that needs to proved before it's fact. I'm not saying that I believe all of this to be a fact, you understand but...

You would have to read some more of Bohm's work to really get in to it.

Some of the studies go right in to that time when a whole bunch of people seen the miracle at Fatima--some people saw the Virgin Mary, while others didn't. Why? Could it be that some people were comfortable with seeing the Virgin, while others were to frightened to because of some of the overbearing implications of religion to begin with? Face it--some people live a pious life, while others know of the uncleanliness they embrace, while attending religious services sporadically. Would the message she have be a good one or a bad one? It all depends on the particular person attending the event, huh.

Are our minds somehow connected to this universe? Is it possible to see what you only want to see--even if it's astounding? Do we have abilities to actually heal ourselves if we really believed it to be true? It goes on to explain even more paranormal occurrences too--UFOS; ghosts; etc;

Anyways, it is an interesting read, guys. If you ever get a chance to pick it up at your local library, you should give it a shot. Does make one wonder.
Nomad
QUOTE
First and foremost gang, this is all about theories--nothing but theories.
A theory is still something that needs to proved before it's fact. I'm not saying that I believe all of this to be a fact, you understand but...

I see, much the same as the THEORY of man made global warming. Good point Grizz! biggrin.gif

QUOTE
Are our minds somehow connected to this universe? Is it possible to see what you only want to see--even if it's astounding? Do we have abilities to actually heal ourselves if we really believed it to be true? It goes on to explain even more paranormal occurrences too--UFOS; ghosts; etc;

Yes our minds are an integral part of all that is. I have seen a bona fide UFO and have also had a verifiable telepathic experience.

Thanks for turning me on to the holographic concept of all that is. The more I research and think it through the more it becomes a viable alternative to the dead end science of present day humanity. That also got me to thinking about my initial post.......And a new posit..........

A simple stare at a misbehaving child will alter that childs' actions and behavior. If we are all part of the whole what difference is there from the child, the conveyance of light or so called dark matter????

025.gif 025.gif 025.gif 019.gif 019.gif 019.gif
Boh Bpen Yang
I understand what you are saying Griz, I think. First of all the first post states erroneously that dark matter has been observed. Actually dark matter is only assumed because it makes Einstein’s theory work. It has never been seen nor proven to exist in any actual way... only in theory. Einstein himself didn't think his theory was satisfactory as it left things unexplained and assumed much. If one looks at something, it doesn't cause a change, only the observers’ perception changes. The things we see in the cosmos happened millions and millions of years ago, by the time the light (or other evaluated wavelength) reaches us. It would be a good trick to change something that happened that long ago.
Click to view attachment
DWMF
So the author (Roger Highfield) is saying that the universe is populated with urban black energy clusters.
"You lookin' at me, punk!" **BOOM** laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2008 Invision Power Services, Inc.