Entropy ~ A State of Decay!

Scientists conduct experiments in a state of decay. The universe is expanding and as it does, causes the universe and everything in it to be in a state of decay; again, caused by its own expansion which began at the Big Bang.

Therefore, in a state of decay, how could any truly new particle be discovered? Is it really new and if it is wouldn't the newness wear off so fast we might not even be able to see it in its 'new' form?

What we must also consider is: who is observing them? Scientists, who themselves exist in a state of decay. So, how could they actually see any new particle? What about computers, as they can "see" and analyze information/things much faster.  The problem with that is that computers pass on the data to scientists who in their state of decay try to make sense of that data. Of course, experiments at CERN are being done that speed up particles so that computers witness what might be called new particles and they tell scientists "yes" there are new particles.

Even if scientists in their state of decay are able to recognize this computer data and agree that those particles are new, how could those scientists apply that data in a state of decay?

It has even been suggested that scientific observations, observing dark energy in order to discover new particles using equipment (Large Hadron Collider) and super computers to detect what scientists with their 'naked' eye cannot observe, have in fact shortened the life span of the universe.  Back in 2007, featured in the latest edition of "New Scientist" magazine, the subscriber-only story, questioned ... "Has observing the universe hastened its end?"

Why or how would that be possible? It would be possible if we consider the possibility that observations of the state of decay actually cause the process of decay to speed up. We have to imagine that means whatever that we look at in the blink of an eye (particle collapse due to observation) is gone in the next. If we try to suspend that blink in a single observation, do we actually move forward in time? Maybe, as once we stop that suspended view and set it free, we may actually have moved in time in the realization that we have made a dangerous quantum leap forward simply via observation of the universe. However, perhaps we can play catch up as we utilize past observations to counter that leap forward which then allows a kind of slow motion; which does not lend to anything new, only that we have come round again so that ... there is nothing new under sun! (Ecclesiastes 1: (). Escaping danger or prolonging it may depend on how you look at it.

My social quantum analysis takes that into consideration and goes even further. The social imagination too exists in a state of decay. We exist in it or have been enabled to exist in this state via what can be called reoccurring collective memory. Is that a problem as it is in the observing of dark energy? Perhaps, if we imagine that without collective memory, we would not have a purpose to observe it. What is the purpose? The purpose is to better understand the state of decay and our imagination of it and in it, right? In our social imagination's state of decay, subject to decay as we experience it around us, we have to ask if we are actually living in a state of decay? If we are, brought on by observing what is while trying to process what is not, then wouldn't we be subject to losing what was imagined prior to that moment of observation?

We would have to ask if there is any 'real' sense of reality. If we lose sight of our 'past' collective memory, an essential aspect of the social imagination, we would run the risk of never having had any real experiences of social imagination in our social imagination.

I think that this is the problem for us today, resulting in more and more of historical revisions of the past and past theories encouraged by those who think that we can create a new future without an embedded collective memory as in an absolute 'past - particle'. And, I am only a sociologist!