Museums

[FarBeyond]

One of my concerns about the future of the study of the natural world is that we have taken so much from it and altered it so much that we may one day not be able to objectively and scientifically study it.

For example, we have dug every fossil from the Earth which we have found, subjected them to several tests such as carbon-dating which affects their composition, and stored them away. One day we may not have any fossils which have not been altered by testing. Remember Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle - that merely observing something changes it. Fossils stored in museums could be damaged or stolen, and in time we may not have any left.

Will we reach a point where we have altered the products of natural history so much that we can no longer scientifically study it?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

One of my concerns about the future of the study of the natural world is that we have taken so much from it and altered it so much that we may one day not be able to objectively and scientifically study it.

For example, we have dug every fossil from the Earth which we have found, subjected them to several tests such as carbon-dating which affects their composition, and stored them away. One day we may not have any fossils which have not been altered by testing. Remember Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle - that merely observing something changes it. Fossils stored in museums could be damaged or stolen, and in time we may not have any left.

Will we reach a point where we have altered the products of natural history so much that we can no longer scientifically study it?

it is common to leave archeological sites partial undug for the future assuming they will have better equipment. if possible, assuming they are not digging in advance of a road or basement that will destroy everything.

besides, look at Rome, how much do you think is undug up under the buildings and pavements, remaining from ancient Rome? look at all the new discoveries from the subway digging now.

apply, rinse, repeat, all over the world as cities grow and population booms.

 

[FarBeyond]

it is common to leave archeological sites partial undug for the future assuming they will have better equipment. if possible, assuming they are not digging in advance of a road or basement that will destroy everything.

besides, look at Rome, how much do you think is undug up under the buildings and pavements, remaining from ancient Rome? look at all the new discoveries from the subway digging now.

apply, rinse, repeat, all over the world as cities grow and population booms.

The difference here is that pottery from ancient Rome doesn't have anything to do with theology, genetics, evolution, or understanding where humanity came from. We don't get into heated political or theological debates over archeological artifacts from ancient Rome. There's no debate over whether or not ancient Roman pottery should be taught in public schools.

 

[WingsOfTheNeophyte]

Remember Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle - that merely observing something changes it.

However if you read about quantum mechanics properly, you would see that this law is on the quantum level, specifically referring to such things as the double slit experiment, where the observation of which slit a photon goes though, destroys the interference pattern

This does not apply on a macro level, it does not work, simple

On the macro level, observing something, has nothing to do with its outcome

 

[FarBeyond]

However if you read about quantum mechanics properly, you would see that this law is on the quantum level, specifically referring to such things as the double slit experiment, where the observation of which slit a photon goes though, destroys the interference pattern

This does not apply on a macro level, it does not work, simple

On the macro level, observing something, has nothing to do with its outcome

I disagree. Crime scenes are altered by observation. Police and technicians have to do everything to keep from altering the scene so everything they find is admissible in court. Latex gloves, photographs, not touching everything; it's all because everything done affects the crime scene and in effect taints it.

Similarly, when we burn something during carbon dating or touch a fossil while moving it we are effectively changing it. This can taint future observations about it and make results questionable.

 

[WingsOfTheNeophyte]

Crime scenes are altered by observation.

It is not the action of observing that changes the object you observe, it is the touching, moving

If floating invisible camera that did not touch stuff, observed the crime scene, there would be no interference/change occurring

It is not the action of observing, but other actions that interfere on the macro level

when we burn something

touch a fossil

moving it

These are not actions of observing

But yes, I agree burning things will definitely impede future scientific analysis of the object

 

[Psudopod]

As far as I understand, (and its been a while since I studied QM) measurement collapses the wavefunction. It's a bit different to saying observation changes something.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

I disagree. Crime scenes are altered by observation. Police and technicians have to do everything to keep from altering the scene so everything they find is admissible in court. Latex gloves, photographs, not touching everything; it's all because everything done affects the crime scene and in effect taints it.

Similarly, when we burn something during carbon dating or touch a fossil while moving it we are effectively changing it. This can taint future observations about it and make results questionable.

First of all, this can be avoided by careful handling, second, the Heisenberg Principle only applies to objects on a microscopical (read: electron sized) scale. Macroscopical objects aren't affected by measuring.

 

[yasic]

As has been pointed out, the principle only applies to very small objects electron sized.

Second, while we may run out of fossils someday, we will still have accurate descriptions of them (which will get stored more and more accurately as time progresses), and not to mention data from natural evolution going on at the very moment in time. By the time we run out of data (assuming we continue as we are without blowing up all our databases in a war), then by then our theories will be so well refined, we wont need them anymore.

 

[fossilman]

For example, we have dug every fossil from the Earth which we have found, subjected them to several tests such as carbon-dating which affects their composition, and stored them away. One day we may not have any fossils which have not been altered by testing. . . . Fossils stored in museums could be damaged or stolen, and in time we may not have any left.

Will we reach a point where we have altered the products of natural history so much that we can no longer scientifically study it?

Simple answer is no.

Most museums, when collecting fossils, collect as much material as is feasable -- especially if there might be destructive tests run on them. Carbon or any kind of radio isotope dating is rarely done on fossils themselves. On the other hand, some fossils might be cut in half or thin sectioned to study the internal structure of the fossil plant or animal. That's why multiple collections are made -- one or two fossils to destroy while studying and a number of others kept in reserve for later inspection.

Yes, handling some fossils does do damage as the oil in our skin tends to rub off and adhear to the fossil, so for important specimens, gloves or tongs might be used.

We will never run out of fossils to study. We have only scratched the surface of the earth. I have collected billions and billions (use Carl Sagan voice) of fossils, although I haven't studied them all. I work with plant microfossils -- pollen, spores, algea. Every time I collect a rock I bring back billions more -- but I leave a nearly infinite number of them at the outcrop when I leave.

Your milage may vary. Plant microfossils and brachiosaurus femars are not quite the same thing -- the rarer the specimen is, the more care goes into preserving the specimen and the data derived from it.

Our real worry is that uban development will keep us from being able to access sites that now produce fossils.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

The difference here is that pottery from ancient Rome doesn't have anything to do with theology, genetics, evolution, or understanding where humanity came from. We don't get into heated political or theological debates over archeological artifacts from ancient Rome. There's no debate over whether or not ancient Roman pottery should be taught in public schools.

you miss my point.
there is an analogy of how many fossils there exist in the earth compared to how many Roman artifacts exist.
we do not have an accurate idea of how many fossils exist. we do have an idea of how many Roman artifacts can possibly exist. we know how long they existed, we have a good idea how many get preserved etc.
by using this analogy, we can see that there remains a lot of Roman artifacts for the future to dig up, by good and useful analogy, we have lots more fossils to dig up as well. We have only touched the proverbial iceberg tip of either field. imho, there are far more Roman artifacts in the ground then exist in all the museums and private collections in the world, likewise by good analogy the same thing is true about the fossils in the earth. only a small percentage have been excavated.

 

[Chalnoth]

As far as I understand, (and its been a while since I studied QM) measurement collapses the wavefunction. It's a bit different to saying observation changes something.

Well, no, it actually is saying exactly that. For example, if you want to find the position of an electron, you might try to bounce a photon off of it. But in bouncing the photon off of the electron, you have changed the momentum of the electron in an unpredictable manner. This is the essence of the uncertainty principle: measuring one thing destroys information about some other things. The act of measurement does change the system.