Anyone see this article,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtm...C-mostviewedbox
It seems a little weird to me, but hell what do I know,
So what do you say we set the calander's to say about what 5-6 thousands years and see if he is right...lol
Ever heard the sound of a scientist's brain "popping"! One reason for the "Brain Drain" I suspect... 
What arrant hubris!
What arrant hubris!
Forget global warming, who cares! Everyone close your eyes now, we will live a lot longer! Wont get much done mind, but at least we will have a few extra days to do nothing. lol.
Even if that extremely outlandish interpretation had a leg to stand on, it also assumes we're the first 'people' to look up into the universe and realise it's expanding. It would have to rely on the fact we're the most technologically and scientifically advanced race in the universe.
Fat chance.
Fat chance.
It reminds me of Greg Egan's sci-fi novel "Quarantine". 
I suppose it's plausible... But using the same logic, I could say that I'm making Mr. Robin Parsons dumb when I read his posts. You might argue that he's conscious, and therefore that's a bad example, but I categorize him in the plant/unconscious area 
.
As far as I understand it, when we collapse the wavefunction of dark matter by observing it, we make it "real", in a classical sense (According to the Copenhagen interpretation, at least). But doesn't that mean we'd be at fault for the existence of masses which contribute to the "big crunch" scenario as well? So we're equalizing it in a way as we create more and more powerful telescopes. Am I right or have I completely misunderstood this?
- Gehn
.As far as I understand it, when we collapse the wavefunction of dark matter by observing it, we make it "real", in a classical sense (According to the Copenhagen interpretation, at least). But doesn't that mean we'd be at fault for the existence of masses which contribute to the "big crunch" scenario as well? So we're equalizing it in a way as we create more and more powerful telescopes. Am I right or have I completely misunderstood this?
- Gehn
I certainly can't understand how humankind could be shortening the universe's life by observing dark matter. IF TRUE, IT MIGHT SHED MORE LIGHT ON WHAT WAS PROPHESIED IN THE BIBLE. YOU KNOW. The part that says we would ''see things'' that were previously not known to humankind? 
QUOTE (Gehn+Nov 30 2007, 11:45 AM)
As far as I understand it, when we collapse the wavefunction of dark matter by observing it, we make it "real", in a classical sense (According to the Copenhagen interpretation, at least).
I was under the impression that a particle's wave function is only collapsed for the duration of the observation... Am I wrong?
I was under the impression that a particle's wave function is only collapsed for the duration of the observation... Am I wrong?
QUOTE (PJParent001+Nov 30 2007, 09:22 PM)
I certainly can't understand how humankind could be shortening the universe's life by observing dark matter.
I'll be glad to explain :
According to the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics, when an object is not being observed, it acts as a wave. This wave represents the probability of the object 's properties. For example, if a wave is more concentrated in area 1 than area 2, it is more likely to be in area 1 than area 2. In essence, the wave is probability.
When the wave (Or "wavefunction") is observed, it "collapses". This means that the position of the object becomes (more) definite (We still won't know exactly where it is, but that's another story). So, we will know that it is in area 1 rather than area 2. When we "observe" dark matter, we are collapsing it's wavefunction. Now, this is the cool bit: According to the Copenhagen Interpretation, an object literally is uncertain when not observed; nature itself does not know where it is. So, dark matter does not fully exist until we look at it.
However, this is all based on the Copenhagen Interpretation, and there are a lot more interpretations, which, if you use them, would disprove the afore mentioned article. But, it's still a cool idea.
- Gehn
I'll be glad to explain
:According to the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics, when an object is not being observed, it acts as a wave. This wave represents the probability of the object 's properties. For example, if a wave is more concentrated in area 1 than area 2, it is more likely to be in area 1 than area 2. In essence, the wave is probability.
When the wave (Or "wavefunction") is observed, it "collapses". This means that the position of the object becomes (more) definite (We still won't know exactly where it is, but that's another story). So, we will know that it is in area 1 rather than area 2. When we "observe" dark matter, we are collapsing it's wavefunction. Now, this is the cool bit: According to the Copenhagen Interpretation, an object literally is uncertain when not observed; nature itself does not know where it is. So, dark matter does not fully exist until we look at it.
However, this is all based on the Copenhagen Interpretation, and there are a lot more interpretations, which, if you use them, would disprove the afore mentioned article. But, it's still a cool idea.
- Gehn
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+Nov 30 2007, 09:29 PM)
I was under the impression that a particle's wave function is only collapsed for the duration of the observation... Am I wrong?
Oops. Sorry. I forgot to mention that. Yep, you're perfectly right about that...
Which makes that article even more confusing.
Help us AlphaNumeric, You Are Our Only Hope!
- Gehn
Oops. Sorry. I forgot to mention that. Yep, you're perfectly right about that...Which makes that article even more confusing.
Help us AlphaNumeric, You Are Our Only Hope!
- Gehn
I was also under the assumption that a particle still emits radiation (such as gravity, or in this case the anti-gravitational effects of dark energy) when it is not being observed..... So then why would it even matter whether or not we've observed dark energy? It'd do the same thing, regardless of whether or not we were looking. I mean, after all, we're not simultaneously examining every electron, proton and neutron that makes up the planet beneath our feet, but we're not flying off the surface from centrifugal force, either....
QUOTE (Gehn+Nov 30 2007, 02:30 PM)
However, this is all based on the Copenhagen Interpretation
Thank you. I don't see the Copenhagen Interpretation very plausible since the world exists wether or not I choose to observe it. It existed before I was born and will continue to exist long after I am gone. Well I certainly hope so.
A tree in the forest
I know there is at least one such tree and that it exists. So does that mean there is something else observing that tree while I am not? Like the other trees? The ground perhaps? The sky? The birds? God? So this leads me to think the dark matter, which cannot be seen directly and is not easy to detect, is being observed by the matter it surrounds.
Who knows. I think the dark matter could simply be quantum mirages caused by gravity.
Thank you. I don't see the Copenhagen Interpretation very plausible since the world exists wether or not I choose to observe it. It existed before I was born and will continue to exist long after I am gone. Well I certainly hope so.
A tree in the forest
I know there is at least one such tree and that it exists. So does that mean there is something else observing that tree while I am not? Like the other trees? The ground perhaps? The sky? The birds? God? So this leads me to think the dark matter, which cannot be seen directly and is not easy to detect, is being observed by the matter it surrounds.
Who knows. I think the dark matter could simply be quantum mirages caused by gravity.
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+Nov 30 2007, 09:37 PM)
I was also under the assumption that a particle still emits radiation (such as gravity, or in this case the anti-gravitational effects of dark energy) when it is not being observed..... So then why would it even matter whether or not we've observed dark energy? It'd do the same thing, regardless of whether or not we were looking. I mean, after all, we're not simultaneously examining every electron, proton and neutron that makes up the planet beneath our feet, but we're not flying off the surface from centrifugal force, either....
I think that it's us defining that it does exist rather than looking at it, but I'm not really sure. A quantum wave function (very) slowly spreads out over time, meaning that it gets more uncertain over time. As Earth is consistently observed, it's wave function cannot grow big enough to cause us to go flying off. So, before we even came into existance, everything was uncertain. Once something conscious evolved, everything that we noticed became definite, and doesn't get the chance to get a big enough wavefunction to raise the question as to whether it actually exists or not. In contrast, dark matter was not observed until recently.
So, in other words, I'm stumped
. This just goes to show how crappy and confusing the Copenhagen Interpretation is. The Many - Worlds interpretation interpretation is a lot better. John Gribbon says that the transactional interpretation is the key to everything, but it's even more confusing.
- Gehn
I think that it's us defining that it does exist rather than looking at it, but I'm not really sure. A quantum wave function (very) slowly spreads out over time, meaning that it gets more uncertain over time. As Earth is consistently observed, it's wave function cannot grow big enough to cause us to go flying off. So, before we even came into existance, everything was uncertain. Once something conscious evolved, everything that we noticed became definite, and doesn't get the chance to get a big enough wavefunction to raise the question as to whether it actually exists or not. In contrast, dark matter was not observed until recently.
So, in other words, I'm stumped
. This just goes to show how crappy and confusing the Copenhagen Interpretation is. The Many - Worlds interpretation interpretation is a lot better. John Gribbon says that the transactional interpretation is the key to everything, but it's even more confusing.- Gehn
QUOTE (Gehn+Nov 30 2007, 02:30 PM)
an object literally is uncertain when not observed; nature itself does not know where it is. So, dark matter does not fully exist until we look at it.
I think the position and velocity of the observed particle changes (HUP), but I doubt it ceases to exist. I also do not buy the Many Worlds Interpretation. I can understand the uncertainty of velocity and position but just because everything is possible does not mean everything is likely to occur; EVER!!! That is one reason why I think history has a way of repeating itself UNTIL there is a perturbation in the minds of many observers!!! For example, IF we cannot envision or believe in a future without war(s), such a future will not and could not happen. We find we are of little faith and of little vision because we fail to BELIEVE! And I think this is why Christ so often asks us to ''Believe, yee of little faith!'' We fail to BELIEVE because we have memory and remember things, which is not all bad of course since otherwise I would not be writing this, and are so easily deceived by everything we see and hear, which we know is actually in reality, an illusion. And not a bad one at that I might add, since everything was created by God.
So does our ability to infer the dark matter that surrounds the normal matter mean the world is coming to an abrupt and screeching halt? I ask this for it has been prophesied in the Holy Bible.
PJ Parent
I think the position and velocity of the observed particle changes (HUP), but I doubt it ceases to exist. I also do not buy the Many Worlds Interpretation. I can understand the uncertainty of velocity and position but just because everything is possible does not mean everything is likely to occur; EVER!!! That is one reason why I think history has a way of repeating itself UNTIL there is a perturbation in the minds of many observers!!! For example, IF we cannot envision or believe in a future without war(s), such a future will not and could not happen. We find we are of little faith and of little vision because we fail to BELIEVE! And I think this is why Christ so often asks us to ''Believe, yee of little faith!'' We fail to BELIEVE because we have memory and remember things, which is not all bad of course since otherwise I would not be writing this, and are so easily deceived by everything we see and hear, which we know is actually in reality, an illusion. And not a bad one at that I might add, since everything was created by God.
So does our ability to infer the dark matter that surrounds the normal matter mean the world is coming to an abrupt and screeching halt? I ask this for it has been prophesied in the Holy Bible.
PJ Parent
QUOTE (Alpha+Nov 30 2007, 05:57 AM)
It reminds me of Greg Egan's sci-fi novel "Quarantine".
That was a while back. O had to check the link, but I have read it. Excellent.
That was a while back. O had to check the link, but I have read it. Excellent.
QUOTE (Gehn+Nov 30 2007, 11:45 AM)
As far as I understand it, when we collapse the wavefunction of dark matter by observing it, we make it "real", in a classical sense (According to the Copenhagen interpretation, at least). But doesn't that mean we'd be at fault for the existence of masses which contribute to the "big crunch" scenario as well? So we're equalizing it in a way as we create more and more powerful telescopes. Am I right or have I completely misunderstood this?
- Gehn
Maybe 'observation' in this case, means 'inside our light cone'? It's really too easy to misunderstand...
Remember that our 'observation/contemplation' of an event is still subject to misperception, signal decay, politics, and any number of other distractions.
- Gehn
Maybe 'observation' in this case, means 'inside our light cone'? It's really too easy to misunderstand...
Remember that our 'observation/contemplation' of an event is still subject to misperception, signal decay, politics, and any number of other distractions.
QUOTE (Gehn+Nov 30 2007, 05:08 PM)
I think that it's us defining that it does exist rather than looking at it, but I'm not really sure. A quantum wave function (very) slowly spreads out over time, meaning that it gets more uncertain over time. As Earth is consistently observed, it's wave function cannot grow big enough to cause us to go flying off. So, before we even came into existence, everything was uncertain. Once something conscious evolved, everything that we noticed became definite, and doesn't get the chance to get a big enough wavefunction to raise the question as to whether it actually exists or not. In contrast, dark matter was not observed until recently.
So, in other words, I'm stumped . This just goes to show how crappy and confusing the Copenhagen Interpretation is. The Many - Worlds interpretation interpretation is a lot better. John Gribbon says that the transactional interpretation is the key to everything, but it's even more confusing.
- Gehn
One thing that seems to help make the Copenhagen Interpretation easier to understand for me is to stop thinking of observation as "looking at something" and start thinking of it in terms of the process used to observe it.
After all, "a particle reacted because I looked at it" is a lot harder to wrap my head around than "a particle reacted because I smashed it in the face with a photon."
(I'd react too. My damn computer smashes me in the face every time I use it and it's starting to piss me off, grrrrrr 
)
It's my understanding that it's the interaction with other particles that provides the mechanism for wavefunction collapse, and interaction with other particles is -of course- our method of observing.
So, in other words, I'm stumped
. This just goes to show how crappy and confusing the Copenhagen Interpretation is. The Many - Worlds interpretation interpretation is a lot better. John Gribbon says that the transactional interpretation is the key to everything, but it's even more confusing.- Gehn
One thing that seems to help make the Copenhagen Interpretation easier to understand for me is to stop thinking of observation as "looking at something" and start thinking of it in terms of the process used to observe it.
After all, "a particle reacted because I looked at it" is a lot harder to wrap my head around than "a particle reacted because I smashed it in the face with a photon."
(I'd react too. My damn computer smashes me in the face every time I use it and it's starting to piss me off, grrrrrr )It's my understanding that it's the interaction with other particles that provides the mechanism for wavefunction collapse, and interaction with other particles is -of course- our method of observing.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.