End of the Universe - Literally (Science News)

[Cross-posted at progressivenashville.com]

A Vanderbilt University professor (and other scientists) warns that humanity may be accidentally hastening the end of the entire universe.  Oops.

To any and all other lifeforms out there in cosmos, sorry!  Our bad!

It all comes down to quantum mechanics and the bizarre (but apparently true) fact that subatomic thingamabobs behave differently if someone is watching them.

Imagine holding a piece of paper in front of a lamp.  You poke two tiny, tiny, subatomic holes in the piece of paper so that light (aka photons) from the lamp can get through.  Left alone, a photon that has a 50% chance of going through either hole will behave as if it’s going through both holes at the same time.  But if you’re watching to see which hole it goes through, it will behave as if it only goes through one hole.   Because unwatched, it behaves as a probability.  But watched, it behaves as a specific thing.  Isn’t that just FREAKING weird?

Okay, back in 1998, we measured "dark energy" for the first time.  Most of the universe, it turns out, is dark energy.  By measuring it, we may have forced the dark energy to stop behaving like a probability and start behaving as a specific thing.  

What "specific thing" did we come up with?  There were so many possibilities... Some were good (meaning the universe was less likely to end) and some were bad (meaning the universe is more likely to end).  But there was no way to know in advance which it would be.  

Turns out, we had a bit of bad luck.  

According to Vandy professor James Dent and others, the "specific thing" that we came up with is more likely to cause the end of the universe than if dark energy had remained an unmeasured probability.

D’oh.

For the record, the scientists measuring dark energy didn’t know they might be affecting anything, so don’t hold it against them.  Could have happened to anyone.

•  Tips?

  Thanks!

  by R o o k on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 03:23:33 PM PDT

  •  A very brief history of time..The chicken !

    Of course..Mr. Ed elementary max plank quantum physics made eazy 101..now my head hurts..Thanks Steven for expanding my universe and my fukin head..! Thanks tooo youse too Mr Albert, because not only does Gawd play dice, but sumtimes he hides rthe damn dice...Snake Eyes ! Thax to you tooo Mr Elvis for Viva Las Veagas and Anne Margaret..The chicken..My head hurts..I'm going to put on my M.I.T. hat now

    by Johnny Rapture on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 03:39:09 PM PDT

•  could you post a link?

  thanks.

  by Felix Culpa on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 03:27:06 PM PDT

  •  link is in diary and that link in turn links

    to this Telegraph UK article:

    Mankind 'shortening the universe's life'

    by gnat on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 03:30:56 PM PDT

    •  Sorry - forgot the link

      Thanks for covering for me, gnat!

      by R o o k on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 03:32:07 PM PDT

    •  That is sooo existential

      by Johnny Rapture on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 03:40:07 PM PDT

      •  Existential indeed!

        I've been cat sitting for my neighbor, Erwin Schrödinger. When I looked in on the cat last night, I observed that it was dead. Did I do something wrong? Schrödinger will either be upset or he won't be upset. Should I listen to my voice mail if there's a message from Schrödinger?

        by RudiB on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 03:46:26 PM PDT

        •  Are youse certain said cat is dead..It may be

          a biological trick needing to be exposed as such..One thing for certain, is that nuthing certain will evur be proved to be uncertsain unless, unless our reference point is illogical in it's scope and thus measurements from said poit are invalid, unless their is another trasceting universe that indeed can warp space and time..Hey man, then all bets are offf...Now, I must agree with Elvis and say Viva Las Vegas you old card counter..I gots to go sing now...Hi neighbor..its the grin, that wins

          by Johnny Rapture on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 04:00:28 PM PDT

          •  reading Godel's theorem at fourteen permanently

            warped my mind.

            by Wee Mama on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 04:50:26 PM PDT

•  So, we really are the center of the Universe? n/t

  by Indexer on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 03:27:14 PM PDT

  •  No, silly

    The center of the universe is a can of Spam.

    by The Termite on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 03:31:14 PM PDT

    •  Oh. Sorry about that.

      I guess I ate it for breakfast yesterday.

      My bad.

      by Indexer on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 03:40:14 PM PDT

      •  As long as nobody saw you eat it, it's cool

        by The Termite on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 03:41:28 PM PDT

        •  Ooooh. Nice! n/t

          by Indexer on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 03:42:20 PM PDT

  •  Now we are..Its all of course relative to

    said chicken..

    by Johnny Rapture on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 03:41:10 PM PDT

•  just don't let Schrodinger's Cat know about this

  link from The Straight Dope.

  by N in Seattle on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 03:28:08 PM PDT

  •  Funny

    The poem one link deeper is priceless!

    by The Termite on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 03:30:46 PM PDT

  •  Shake him outta that damn box furst..Is he dead

    or not...Nine g'damn lives aiint fare..Just not

    by Johnny Rapture on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 03:42:17 PM PDT

•  I caught this the other day...

  ...and it squared with a bunch of physics and metaphysics I've read, but I'm way too much of a dilettante to know whether the science really makes sense.

  Regardless, destroying all of creation by just looking at part of it would be a wonderfully ironic end to it all, wouldn't it?

  by The Termite on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 03:28:31 PM PDT

  •  Well, isn

    by Owllwoman on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 03:32:15 PM PDT

    •  Owllwoman, are you okay?!?!

      Please tell me you didn't get consumed by the encroaching grey void while typing your comment!!!

      by The Termite on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 03:33:53 PM PDT

    •  My puter had a mother board fart. Sorry.

      Isn't there a passage in the Bible that says not to ponder of the things that are God? Or of the why or how behind God? To late now!

      by Owllwoman on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 03:35:02 PM PDT

      •  The bible says to love god with your

        whole mind. So, I guess it's OK to keep thinking!

        by RudiB on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 03:49:22 PM PDT

  •  I don't believe it

    And, BTW, I think the Schroedinger's cat paradox is bullshit.

    by Demi Moaned on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 03:42:48 PM PDT

    •  Yeah! Damned cat!

      I hates me some cats . . .

      by Indexer on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 03:44:10 PM PDT

      •  On this blog?

        Oh noooo

        by side pocket on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 03:55:39 PM PDT

        •  No shit

          Here come the quantum pooties.  And you never mess with quantum pooties.

          by The Termite on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 03:56:24 PM PDT

        •  Shhh! It's a secret. n/t

          by Indexer on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 04:07:17 PM PDT

    •  are you a quantum physicist?

      Just asking.

      by The Termite on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 03:46:13 PM PDT

      •  What we need here is not a q physicist...

        What we need here is a quantum physician.

        Any in the house?

        by Jules Beaujolais on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 04:01:50 PM PDT

      •  No

        And I accept the counter-intuitive indeterminacies of quantum physics.

        I just don't think it follows in logic that the Schroedinger's cat apparatus converts the poisoning of the cat into a quantum indeterminate phenomenon. After all, what is 'an observer'. No one can actually see these things. The device that tracks the particle for decay is the observer, therefore there is no indeterminacy.

        What's wrong with my reasoning?

        by Demi Moaned on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 04:14:33 PM PDT

        •  Don't ask me

          You lost me at "indeterminacies."

          by The Termite on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 04:24:25 PM PDT

        •  Both states are true until you look

          by palantir on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 05:05:40 PM PDT

          •  What constitutes looking?

            No human is ever looking directly at these particles. They have to use devices to conduct observations.

            Explain why the device that detects the particle and releases the cyanide is not conducting the observation.

            by Demi Moaned on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 11:57:53 AM PDT

  •  Well ...

    ... this assumes a lot of things we don't really know yet.

    The first and most obvious is that we don't know the properties of the Dark Energy.  If it really is a cosmological constant, then this business about observing is meaningless.  Rather, Dent et al. are assuming that it is a dynamical field, like Quintessance.  While cosmic coincidence (why is the Dark Energy content of the universe so close to the matter content at this particular time) might suggest such a thing, and indeed was why such a thing was first postulated, there is no supporting evidence right now.

    The second thing involves the difference between "strong" and "weak" measurements.  The way the quantum Zeno effect works is by noting that observations of energy collapse particle wave functions into stationary states, states with no time evolution.  This is a result of Uncertainty (if you know the energy exactly, the evolutionary time must be infinite).  However, the question arises, how well do you need to know the energy?  If you really want to see the quantum Zeno effect, you had better collapse the wave function to a single state, which means make a really damn precise energy measurement.  There are so many degrees of freedom in whatever field is generating the Dark Energy that I can't believe we have significantly collapsed its wave function by the measurements we've made thus far.

    So, what should be done?  The first is to find out if the Dark Energy is evolving.  People are working very hard on this.

    by zephron on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 03:46:46 PM PDT

    •  Please translate

      What are the odds that we've completely screwed the pooch?

      December 21, 2012?

      by The Termite on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 03:58:36 PM PDT

      •  Ahh. Mayan calender day.

        One of my favorites.

        by Indexer on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 04:08:21 PM PDT

      •  0%

        In 5 billion years the sun expands to a red giant, engulfing the earth, that's when the earth goes either way.

        However, let's imagine we get off this rock by then.  As cosmic expansion accelerates, galaxies will appear to redshift away, falling beyond the cosmic horizon.  First this will happen to the most distant galaxies, over billions of years.  Then it will accelerate, driving closer galaxies over the horizon.

        If the acceleration stays its current value, the local group (the galaxies near the Milky Way, such as Andromeda) will remain bound, and will be the only Universe we know.  This is the scenario described by Dent & Krauss.  Were the acceleration to increase, even the local group would at some point be torn apart, leaving only the Milky Way, a lonely island unto itself.

        I believe that's the worst you can do while satisfying the 2nd law of thermodynamics (entropy always increases).  However, if this isn't terribly important to you, you can imagine the process continuing, until we find ourselves alone around our nearest star (some far off sun that hasn't been born yet).

        Finally, during all of this, the hydrogen and helium in the universe is being converted into heavier elements, providing the energy that supports life.  However this will not continue forever.  Within our cosmic horizon there is a finite amount of stuff, and thus a finite amount of energy to be had.  Towards the end, everything is fused to iron, then accreted by black holes.  But fear not, this is not the end yet!  There is still Hawking radiation, though it will take a bit of scaling back.  Stellar mass black holes radiate thermally at damn near to absolute zero.  The final fate is the heat death, once all the black holes finally evaporate away, leaving a soup of cold uniform particles.

        Keep in mind that this trillions of years in the future, and we've been doing this modern science thing for 100 years.  So, our extrapolation might not be perfect.  Thus you may take heart that there are more things in heaven and earth, my dear Termite, than are dreamt of in our philosophy.

        by zephron on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 04:26:51 PM PDT

        •  Please, PLEASE write a diary about this

          At the very least, this is top comments material.

          by The Termite on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 04:29:54 PM PDT

          •  Done! Now it's up to tonight's editor.

            by Wee Mama on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 04:54:43 PM PDT

            •  Yeah, I sent it, too

              by The Termite on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 04:55:24 PM PDT

        •  It seems though

          ... that black holes don't only devour, but also excrete, so to speak?  I read that the quantum particles coming out of its sphincter have some effect or other that upsets some current paradigm.

          Not that I know what I'm talking about...

          by Jules Beaujolais on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 04:47:01 PM PDT

          •  It's the unitarity of quantum mechanics.

            The idea is that information is never destroyed, so what happens to all that informative stuff that falls into black holes?  Well, we know some stuff comes out of black holes, Hawking radiations.  Perhaps that can carry back out, in some form, all the quantum information that went in.

            Of course, how this works requires a quantum theory of gravity, to handle the singularity inside the black hole.  While there have been notable conversions (Hawking recently "decided" that this must be the way it works) there has not been any conclusive explanation for how this really works.

            by zephron on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 04:51:02 PM PDT

            •  But what qualifies as "information"?

              Is it a distinguishable unit of something?  If it's a quantum unit, how is it distinguishable as anything other than a probability?

              by The Termite on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 04:54:50 PM PDT

              •  Essentially, the quantum states.

                Or more precisely, the quantum density matrix, which encodes the quantum states of a large system.  We must be able to learn all about the quantum states, at all times, since the quantum state may evolve, but is never truly destroyed.  Or in one word, the theory must be "Unitary".

                by zephron on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 05:01:35 PM PDT

                •  Information isn't lost because ...

                  The positive mass particles and the negative mass ones always communicate, even when one is torn from the pair and wrung through a black hole?

                  That's an idea I am able to wrap my mind around...

                  by Jules Beaujolais on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 05:15:40 PM PDT

                  •  But what about all the other stuff that fell in

                    beforehand?  For example, during the original collapse or accretion of gas afterwards.  Where does all the quantum information associated with that stuff go?  That's the question.

                    by zephron on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 06:00:42 PM PDT

            •  Thanks

              "How this really works" is that my IQ is rapidly approaching a black hole...

              by Jules Beaujolais on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 04:58:58 PM PDT

          •  rec'd for "sphincter"...

            ...even if I tend to think of sphincters primarily as "out doors."

            by The Termite on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 04:57:00 PM PDT

          •  Black holes "excrete" Hawking particles...

            ...positive mass ones, to be more exact, as opposited to the negative mass ones which subtract mass from the black hole - "evaporating" them as zephron said.

            by R o o k on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 05:01:35 PM PDT

•  in another sign the universe may be ending

  Bush Welcomed Gore to the White House Today

  (but only b/c he had to)

  by gnat on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 03:33:01 PM PDT

•  I listened to the GW conference.

  Does not sound good. Made me want to hide my head in the sand. We have to move now or its too late. These guys were dead serious. I watched it on C-Span today.

  by Owllwoman on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 03:37:16 PM PDT

  •  Move now or it's too late?

    How, precisely?  Relocate to a new universe?

    by The Termite on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 03:40:33 PM PDT

    •  Get started cutting CO2

      or we are going to loose the Ice Caps by 2034.

      by Owllwoman on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 03:43:14 PM PDT

      •  The ice caps?! The ice caps are small potatoes!

        We're talking about the universe here, woman!!!!!!

        :)

        by The Termite on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 03:45:18 PM PDT

    •  Our universe is only one of billions and Billions

      other multitudinous universi in the vast umiversality of infinity as we used to know it from a rapidly falling elevator...Or was that the apple, oh well..I luv fig Newtons and apples..The rapidly falling elevator, ah, no..We must all remain Progressive and Multi-Universalis proponents and we will morph into a universal star hood of love..Furst star on the left and straight on till moprning and we will nevu, nevu age...Clap, clap, clap

      by Johnny Rapture on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 03:46:26 PM PDT

•  cute

  But I am in the camp that the act of observation has nothing to do with intelligence.

  by John DE on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 03:39:21 PM PDT

  •  It shows, toooo...

    by Johnny Rapture on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 03:47:21 PM PDT

•  Who could have known that they were affecting

  things by measuring it? How long have scientists known about that fucking cat in a box?

  by calipygian on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 03:40:18 PM PDT

  •  How many who watched the Mizzou-Kansas

    know that they (by watching or listening) determined the outcome of the game?

    by RudiB on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 03:53:19 PM PDT

•  Bush called it: "This is still a dangerous world.

  It's a world of madmen and uncertainty and potential mental losses."

  by yojimbo on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 03:41:54 PM PDT

  •  Don't be so hard on Bush

    It's clear he meant "dental flosses."

    by The Termite on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 03:53:50 PM PDT

•  Like

  the old poster of the engine of a train hanging over a cliff and the little bubble above says, "Oh Shit!! That would be one of those.

  by RustyBrown on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 03:42:13 PM PDT

  •  There Are Other Amusing Versions

    Water skier heading into a cloud of racing sailboats.

    by Gooserock on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 04:28:24 PM PDT

•  Is this sortof like Heisenberg's Uncertainty

  Principle?

  Could we stop looking at dark energy to make it behave(oh, be-Have!)?

  Could aliens also inspect dark energy to inspire it to do something else?

  Is the fact that humans' love of power hasn't overcome the power of love the reason that the dark energy is misbehaving?

  Is the reason the dark energy is misbehaving simply because we're ascribing the word 'dark' to it which carries a bad connotation? If so, I suggest we start calling it 'Happy Matter.'

  I'm so fucking stoned......

  by BlueGenes on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 03:45:32 PM PDT

  •  Dont try and sell me Heisenberg's Uncertainty ..

    Cause I aint buying..Of that I am totally Certain, sort of

    by Johnny Rapture on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 03:48:58 PM PDT

    •  Well, Heisenberg said you CAN be certain

      of one thing -- just not more than one thing (apropos the momentum and position of a subatomic particle).

      by RudiB on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 03:55:27 PM PDT

      •  A fight for luv and glory, on that we can rely..

        The wurld will always welcome luvers as Time Goes By..Heisenberg's Uncertainty be damned..

        by Johnny Rapture on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 04:03:25 PM PDT

  •  Is the Blue Gene, dominant or recessive...?

    Fruit flies are helpful

    by Johnny Rapture on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 03:50:22 PM PDT

    •  Partially Dominant. eom

      by BlueGenes on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 03:54:39 PM PDT

    •  Time flies like an arrow

      Fruit flies like a banana.

      by Wee Mama on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 04:59:15 PM PDT

  •  LMFAO @ "I'm so fucking stoned"

    So right behind you.

    by The Termite on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 03:54:35 PM PDT

•  Call for K-9 and

  
  The Doctor.

  by Gooserock on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 04:27:40 PM PDT

•  Wait a Minute, Isn't D.E. a Macro Quantity

  the most macro thing that exists, no?

  I thought the observation/probability conflict referred to observation of quantum-scale entities.

  by Gooserock on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 04:30:39 PM PDT

•  The Flaming Lips - Do You Realize??

  Embedding disabled so here is the link:

  http://www.youtube.com/...

  Death, is only an illusion. It’s not an end, it’s not even real, and certainly not something to fear or dread. Hmm...

  The sun recently set outside my house. But it’s not setting. Nor is the sun rising elsewhere. The sun isn’t even moving. Maybe we speak and think in antiquated terms. That the definitions of our world (and ourselves) are still flat conceptually.

  So who knows how this ride ends?  And what the next one is?

  by SarahLee on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 04:47:02 PM PDT

  •  Anyone who ref's the Lips...

    ...gets a rec from me.

    Sometime I'll tell you my Wayne Coyne story.

    by The Termite on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 04:51:14 PM PDT

•  End of the universe

  First, James Dent is not a Vanderbilt professor, but a postdoc at Vandy.  His coauthor, however, Lawrence Krauss, is very well respected and is a leading cosmologist.  They are serious physicists.   I know Krauss quite well, and respect his abilities.

  Second, in their paper, they ask the question in their abstract:   "Several interesting open questions are raised, including whether observing the cosmological configuration of a metastable universe can constrain its inferred lifetime."   This basically asks whether the observation of dark energy can hasten the end of the universe, as the diarist says.

  However, they do NOT answer the question positively, and simply pose it as an interesting question.  They would agree that the answer is almost certainly negative.  It's like asking whether a large nuclear explosion could ignite the entire atmosphere--it is mathematically possible, but so unlikely as to be laughable (roughly as likely as the possibility that George Bush is a space alien from Pluto).

  I could discuss the actual issues, but Zephron has done a terrific job in discussing them, and there's not much more I could add.

  by science on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 04:53:23 PM PDT

•  What to do?

  

  by SarahLee on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 05:08:06 PM PDT

•  Not going to comment on the untestable

  but I do have a little peeve with

  Left alone, a photon that has a 50% chance of going through either hole will behave as if it’s going through both holes at the same time.  But if you’re watching to see which hole it goes through, it will behave as if it only goes through one hole.   Because unwatched, it behaves as a probability.  But watched, it behaves as a specific thing.  Isn’t that just FREAKING weird?

  It's a commonplace that light has wave and particle nature, but when we talk about light as a wave we are talking about an oscillatory electromagnetic field. When we talk photons we talk about quanta of light energy. News flash: field strength != energy! They don't even have the same units. Figure out how to reconcile that and it will make a whole lot more sense (hint: we measure energy).

  by alefnot on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 08:50:30 PM PDT