Re: [asa] The cat strikes again!

 I think that the
acceleration of cosmic expansion may indeed be a force at a greater
scale beginning to show up as the matter in the local universe achieves a
lower density.? Inside the nucleus of the atom the strong force wants
to hold the neutrons and protons tightly together while at a larger
scale the electric force begins to have a pronounced effect in making
the protons all want to repel each other.? In a similar fashion I think
that as continue expanding gravity is starting to loose traction to a
pervasive, grand-scale force that is next "up" the scalar ladder from
gravity.? Much the same way that gravity doesn't have much of an effect
between two atoms, this expanding force doesn't have any effect between
two planetary systems or local galaxies.

As for dark matter, I
don't think it will turn out to matter so much as some variable in
Relativity the we now see as a constant or zero limited like the time
variable is zero in Newtons special case but is a factor in
Relativity.? It's like, if you think of God while your looking at this
stuff you more expect the discoveries to continue beyond your current
understanding forever, and in that light you kind of intuit, I think,
how our current naivete is masking a bigger picture.? In
this vein I think that the Big Bang will turn out to be a local,
ultimately finite affair? that joins in profusion with other Big Bang
structures in an infinitely hierarchical progression just like every
physical object or structure ever observed from quarks to galaxy
clusters.? Anything else would be a mere ship in a bottle for our
transcendent God.?

-Mike (Friend of ASA)

-----Original Message-----

From: George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com>

To: j burg <hossradbourne@gmail.com>; asa@calvin.edu

Sent: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 7:34 am

Subject: Re: [asa] The cat strikes again!

The editor says at the start,?"this report
apparently assumes that humans are alone in the universe" but doesn't comment
further on that.? It does deserve further reflection.? The validity of
Krauss & Dent's argument does at least require that no other intelligent
species in the universe has developed to the point of being able to make the
astronomical observations we've made in the past?20 years.

?

& there's another point:? Speaking of
"observing dark energy" is a bit problematic.? We've observed accelerating
expansion of galaxies & have explained that in terms of the gravitational
effect of dark energy.? But is dark energy in fact the explanation for
cosmic acceleration?? In the double slit experiment, we could in principle
determine which slit a photon has gone through by looking for its gravitational
influence because we know that there is EM energy somewhere in the system &
that (at least if general relativity is right)?that such energy has a
gravitational effect, so we could reasonably infer the position of a photon from
observations of the motion of a?test particle.? But we don't know
enough about what causes cosmic acceleration to be able to make such inferences
with complete confidence in that case.

?

Shalom

George

http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/

----- Original Message -----

From:
  j
  burg

To: asa@calvin.edu

Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 5:05
  PM

Subject: [asa] The cat strikes
  again!

Some things about physics are too crazy not to be true. This one tops
  them all.

?

Burgy

?

      
ROGER HIGHFIELD, Science Editor - Telegraph
        (U.K.)

      
A kind of cosmic variant of the Observer Effect.
        The odd thing, to me at least, is that this report apparently assumes
        that humans are alone in the universe.

      
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.
        

The Boomerang Nebula, mankind 'shortening the universe's
        life'

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.

advertisement

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.

________________________________________________________________________
More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/text.htm?ncid=aolcmp00050000000003

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Nov 28 12:52:00 2007