Astronomers may have unknowingly sensed the end of the universe simply by watching it, according to a report published today (Saturday) in the journal New Scientist
Avi Blizovsky
Are we accelerating the end of the universe by watching it? This is the first question raised by a pair of physicists who propose that we are inadvertently bringing the universe close to its end by observing dark energy, which they believe is the cause of the accelerating expansion of the universe.
Lawrence Krause of Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio, and his colleague James Dent, claim that through the observation made in 1998, we may cause the universe to return to a state similar to that of the earlier universe, where it will also end its life. "Surprising as it may seem, the discovery of dark energy may reduce the lifespan of the universe" says Kraus.
The researchers came to the conclusion by calculating the evolution of the energy state of the universe.
Both physicists attack the concept that the universe, created 13.7 billion years ago in the "big bang" will live forever. In fact, the universe is in a delicate state, they say. Until recently, the accepted opinion was that the energy released in the Big Bang occurred when a "false vacuum" - a bubble of strong energy that defies gravity broke into the "normal" vacuum where the energy balance is zero. However, evidence from recent years puts a question mark on this opinion. First the cosmologists discovered that the universe is expanding. And then, they believe that an as-yet undiscovered energy, known as "dark energy" is spreading in the universe, which could explain the sum of all the energy clusters not being enough to do what they do.
According to this line of thought, dark energy is a result of the Big Bang and is accelerating the expansion of the universe. If so, the universe is not in the state of a void with a zero energy balance but simply another simulated void, which may decay again without warning - something that would have disastrous consequences.
"The energy that will erupt in this decay could destroy everything in the universe" and leave it clean, says Kraus. The good news is: “The longer the universe survives, the greater the chances that it will mature and stabilize. "We are only a little past the turning point" Kraus believes.
The bad news: the quantum effect, the strange factor of physics that states that when we observe or acknowledge something, we release a switch. Krauss and Dent point to the measurements of light from a supernova in 1998 that provided the first evidence for the existence of dark energy.
These measurements may accelerate the decay clock of the "simulated void" back to zero, well before the tipping point and back to a state where the catastrophic decay was greater than today" say Dent and Krauss. "We may have eliminated the possibility of the universe surviving forever and instead caused it to decay." According to them, other astrophysicists challenge this statement and reassure that "the fact that we are still here means that this could not have happened yet".
The lonely future that awaits us in 3 trillion years
Hubble reveals - dark energy has been with us for at least 9 billion years
Hubble reveals: dark energy has existed for at least 9 billion years
The universe will continue to expand forever
38 תגובות
Tell me, is the author of the article crazy or not?
Let's say the dark matter is the one that holds the universe so that it doesn't fall, the matter wasn't supposed to run out at some point, I mean 20 billion years have passed why didn't it run out then, and do scientists have proof that the same dark matter is the one that holds the universe?
And in my opinion, we the people did not destroy or are not destroying the universe and it sounds ridiculous that someone came up with this theory.
What is more, until this theory has been studied in depth, it is impossible to know whether it is true or not.
Moshe,
Can you say which conference it is? It doesn't sound like a conference with typical conclusions for physicists.
Thanks,
Roy.
For Mathematica from 28/11
A few years ago, a conference was held in Tel Aviv that discussed, among other things, the influence of human consciousness on the experiment in physics.
An opinion was formed there that the consciousness of the person (the observer) has an effect on the experiment.
Regarding the effect of the cat (including that of Schrödinger) there were differences of opinion. Some argued that the cat has sufficient consciousness to affect the experiment and some held the opposite opinion.
Regarding cockroaches there was an almost general agreement, that they have no consciousness
any effect on the experiment.
From this it can be concluded that the size is decisive, or perhaps the mental strength of the viewer is decisive.
Recently, as part of a study on Jewish colonies (in Tel Aviv)
It turned out that a single germ may not be so smart, but a colony of bacteria is another story.
If alien colonies have an effect on the experiment and following things posted here, we are in serious trouble.
Final question; A single cockroach may have no effect on the experiment, but what about a colony of cockroaches???
I'm done for now.
Michael are you here Michael Michael? Gone 🙁
The new theory described in the article suffers from a number of serious weaknesses and sounds more like a theory taken from the Arabian Nights than a scientific theory. Here are some weaknesses:
1. It is not clear how a star, galaxy or dark energy, which are at a great distance from the viewer and may no longer exist, will be affected by the act of viewing.
The brief reminder in the article of quantum theory is clearly not a substitute for a well-founded explanation. Quantum theory or even this combination of words is not a magic solution for everything.
2. What happens if one person is watching the dark energy (or a star or a galaxy) and at the same time someone else is also watching them? Maybe the effect of each of them cancels each other out... it's really the war of the worlds 🙂
And what happens if an animal watches? Or a machine (eg a camera)? Or an alien? And in general, if you don't see the dark energy and are not aware of its existence, why would it be affected by the mere observation (and of course even if you are aware of its existence it is not clear why it would be affected).
Attention readers:
The magazine NEW SCIENTIST is not a scientific magazine
Regular. This is a magazine notorious for its low standards and the speculative articles it often publishes. Therefore, the claim in the article should be considered in the appropriate proportions. for further details:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Scientist
Guys, I'm asking!
Every comment here brings the end of the universe closer
(and with it the salvation Danba)
So I'm the last and that's enough!
My uncle,
Please think quickly that I exist. It seems to me that not enough people think about me and I'm fading away!
To Roy Cezana.
The same bored person (Doctors Roy Lerner, Shula Lifshitz and Moshe Sharoni) also copies passages from other responses (which, by the way, contradict each other) and makes from them the words of Oracle Haim
If it wasn't clear yet, 'Shula Lifshitz', 'Roi Lerner' and 'Moshe Sharoni' are all the same person, very bored.
to Doctor Doc
This is what happens when you use automatic translators.
get strange results.
No conscious observation is needed to cause the wave function to collapse. No need to even measure! It is enough for a constellation to form in the universe that, from a physical point of view, would in principle allow measurement, and then a collapse will occur as a result of the decay.
With the collapse of the superposition, we can do no more harm.
As we know, viewing the object that emits radiation causes that radiation to be concentrated at a point where it was not supposed to occur, and this is actually a projection of our consciousness on the cosmological reality while looking from the narrow angle of field theory.
PS: Dr. Roy Lerner is a renowned scientist at the Technion and is also a linguist, a poet and the owner of a bookstore in Tel Aviv!
The reality we see is all a projection of our consciousness, there are no exceptions to the rule and no margins... it's all us.
The degree of our concentration on something is the degree of its 'reality'.
The more people think a certain thought, the stronger it is in reality.
The very publication of the report (which assumes that viewing the universe foreshadows its end)
The publication of such a report is a disaster in that its very existence and public publication foreshadows the end of the universe.
Good thing they didn't issue a report that the stock market is currently an inflated balloon.
to Doctor Doc.
Nice sermon!
I was also a little surprised at the use of the word rot (not to mention "decomposition") but I didn't try to wonder about its origin.
For those who were still wondering, my guess is that "decay" is the unsuccessful translation of the term DECAY. There is an accurate and readable translation: decline. Please, the quick keyboards in the website system - use human proofreading.
Where can you buy a simulated vacuum with a zero energy balance?
How much does a kilo cost?
Regarding the comments that talk about how soon this will happen:
I don't have a deep knowledge of physics but still, if we want to know how long it will take to end the universe, we need to measure the amount of dark matter and dark energy in the universe. Such a measurement will bring the end of the universe, does this mean that we will be able to know when the contraction of the universe will begin only after it begins?
for a moment, a moment, a moment:
No. why do you ask
If I look at the sky, and all types of radiation strike my eyes, but my visual sense is unable to analyze most of them and my mind is unable to receive the information, have I not observed the universe and its multitude of radiations and quantum states?
Two comments:
1) It seems to me that New Scientist is a bit over the top lately with publishing reports that have not been peer reviewed. It certainly helps ratings, but not sure for reputation.
2) Most theories in quantum mechanics sound delusional to one degree or another, but that doesn't say much about their correctness. Some of these delusional theories (a small part) have been proven correct in experiments and are in fact the most accurate theories that exist in science today, including predicting physical constants with an accuracy of ten or twenty digits after the point. The scientific criterion for the validity of any theory is not how delusional it sounds, but only how many predictions it provides that can be verified by experiment or observation. If the above theory fails to produce such predictions, it will join a large number of similar theories in the dustbin of science.
Point - I think you missed the main point.
In contrast to the understandable fears that people may have about experiments that will produce unexpected results (such as black holes and other shameful nuclear weapons of their kind) this article talks about the very act of observing the universe.
It seems far-fetched, on the one hand, and unfeasible on the other.
It has already been said - both by me and by others - why this is absurd.
It is unfeasible because the alternative is to simply close our eyes, seal our nose and ears, cut off our sense of taste and touch, or in short - commit suicide (knowing that even this suicide will not help for the reasons already mentioned)
All the things said in the article are not new at all. And those who know the physics of the 70s know that even then there were arguments about the danger of creating particle accelerators that could cause instability in the vacuum energy and thus the destruction of the universe.
.
Expanding on the anonymous user from comment 2:
Not only is there no need for conscious observation to cause the wave function to collapse. No need to even measure! It is enough for a constellation to form in the universe that, from a physical point of view, would in principle allow measurement.
The whole article seems delusional to me.
Lerner writes "As is well known, viewing an object that emits radiation results in the concentration of that radiation at a point where it was not supposed to occur" and I ask what "was supposed to occur" means? Who says what "should" happen? Do you really mean the trivial fact that the lens of the eye refracts some harmful rays of light and concentrates them where they would not be concentrated without it? Are you really unaware that every random raindrop does exactly the same thing?
All the best for the courage of the scientists who published "such" a theory.. that on the face of it and from every side we look at it, it has not the slightest chance that it will ever represent anything in reality!
They don't specify when the universe will stop (with a cosmic screech?) and start shrinking on us..probably something like a few billion years or at least millions of years..these concerns should be called the science of stotisics beyond the funny fact that if we observe then we will influence! After all, matter flows all the time in the universe, whether we observe it or not!! Besides, we are just a tiny point (the entire solar system) and meaningless from a cosmic point of view, what's more, there is a great chance that other civilizations started observing the universe millions of years ago!
Guhi Guhi Guho Guha is what the dark energy is thinking about!
Dark energy is equivalent to Einstein's mistake of life, the cosmological constant.
Physicists have not yet found an adequate explanation for the expansion of the universe, the observed mass of which indicates that it is supposed to slow down the rate of expansion and not accelerate as is actually happening, so to balance the equations they pushed more mass into the content. Dark energy is gibberish in the clothing (it's a scientific term) of scientists who don't want to make an effort to find a real explanation, so they shove more mass into the equations and claim that this mass exists in the universe only that it cannot be observed, measured or sensed in any way known to science. Did someone say God?
The two responses of:
"Moshe Sharoni - the pensioners faction"
"Dr. Roy Lerner-The Technion"
They are fake and were written by an uninformed and nameless person who chose to remain anonymous.
That's why everything written in their messages is nonsense in high language.
For little Jonathan:
Say, what are you an idiot? How the hell did you manage to link the article and the comments to the Palestinians?
The reaction of the terrorist organizations and the extreme left:
"We positively accepted the idea of destroying the entire universe by looking at dark matter and dark energy. From today we will not send suicide terrorists and hypocritical Arabs to you.
These days we are giving out sophisticated telescopes to all the Arabs in Gaza and Yosh and providing training from Hamas people: how to watch the telescopes to bring about the destruction of the universe.
In the meantime these stupid Arabs don't listen to us and they use telescopes to watch the neighbors who shower once every two weeks"
Dr. Lerner is safe.
I have to agree with you on this subject, but it seems to me that you forgot to mention one thing. Because, also according to your approach, if within 249,999 years, a Palestinian state will be established within the borders of 67' with Jerusalem as its capital, and a just solution to the refugee problem will be found within the borders of the Green Line, then all the problems of the universe will be solved. I think this can be a fair basis for negotiations with the Palestinian Authority. This way we can kill two birds with one stone, both the solution of the Palestinian problem and the solution of the problem of the contraction of the universe.
I would love to know the position of the terrorist organizations and the extreme left on the issue.
As we know, looking at the object that emits radiation causes that radiation to be concentrated at a point where it was not supposed to occur. This causes the space-time line to be distorted and definitely changes the cosmological essence of the universe, even when it comes to observing the dark force.
Since "dark energy" is spreading in the universe, this explains the fact that the sum of all the energy sources is not enough to accelerate the expansion of the universe. Therefore, the universe is not in a state of a vacuum with a zero energy balance but simply a simulated vacuum, which will contract again without warning - something that will have consequences Disastrous.
The process may start in about 250000 years, so you have to think about what can be done.
As a member of the Knesset's science committee, I am preparing a bill that would prohibit viewing the universe with means other than an optical telescope and ban Israelis from doing so abroad.
A serious answer to a serious question:
Whoever thinks that by looking at some point in the universe, it is possible to cause the destruction of the universe, is delusional.
Continue a serious answer to a serious question:
If I look at a closed ice cream box and think it has dark ice cream, does that really mean there is such a thing as dark ice cream?
Just because I think there's dark ice cream there doesn't force the universe to make dark ice cream and put it in a box.
And if I think that this dark ice cream has a rough texture and changes color every 5.5 seconds, does that mean that these are really its properties?
Currently, every sentence about "dark matter" and "dark energy" in particular should start with "I think that.."
I have a serious question:
Suppose that somewhere in the universe there is another civilization, and suppose that it is scientifically and technologically advanced than us; Will our observations still be to blame for the universe? Or maybe since that civilization has already observed the universe, it has already caused the collapse of the superposition, and basically we can't do any more harm.
It is also possible to present the question in another way: if it seems that our observations do not 'spoil' (suppose we find a way to prove this), then the collapse has already happened, and hence there is unequivocal proof that at least one more civilization exists.
It is also possible - according to the way of thinking of the article - that there will be several 'lumps' of dark matter in the universe, each of which will have different characteristics because each of them was observed at a different time by a different civilization.
If someone understood the idea in the article, and has a serious answer to my questions, I would love to see it,
Thanks
I am amazed at all the commenters and their amazement at this letter. Is the creationist approach any less strange? Is the existence of parallel worlds (multiverse versus universe) more plausible? And finally, is a one-time explosion at the heart of the universe (the Big Bang) and the creation of forces from nothing from a singular point a trivial matter?
These theories, all of them, seem to me to be just as "weird". This article brings another option that seems funny - but in fact it swims in a whole sea of theories with exactly the same caliber of strangeness.
Greetings friends,
Ami Bachar
I would be happy to see any support for such a big conclusion.
What did the researchers base their decision on?
Unfortunately, I don't understand physics or astronomy, but as a casual reader it seems that modern science is looking more and more like the Mediterranean theories about the beginning of the universe.
In fact, a secular myth was created here that is controlled by demonic-scientific forces (someone else will give it a name in Arabic) such as "dark energy", "false void", "rotten clock" etc... I do not come to disparage the lives of researchers who make a decent living and do their work faithfully (within the given scientific framework which they consciously or not dictated to themselves) in Givat Ram, but to study another chapter in the humility and validity of scientific theories (and our perceptions of the world in general) over time.
Eyal, Eyal, as much as you are right, taking a result obtained from quantum measurements from the micro field of the particles, and projecting it on the whole universe is really a delusional thing.
For the first time I also come across concepts such as: false void versus normal void, simulated void and in addition the decay of the universe.
Day by day I stick to my opinion that there is no dark mass and hence there is no need for dark energy and there is no need for articles such as this article.
Have a good week.
Sabdarmish Yehuda
It's amazing how far the misinterpretation of Schrödinger's cat analogy goes. She basically says that there are microscopic things that cannot be measured without affecting them.
It's really absurd. All physicists of all kinds should realize that measurement without intervention has no effect, and that there is no difference between conscious and unconscious measurement.
It's not April Fools' Day today, is it?
(I'll answer one of the funniest articles I've ever read)