Big Bang of the Big Bang Theory

shanered

The scientists contradict themselves here I believe.

1. If the wave form of electrons only collapse into particles upon observation, then who was there to observe Big Bang?

2. If Big Bang was the moment at which matter came into existence and no one was there to observe this event, then all that would still exist to this very moment would be only waves of potential having no form. Ostensibly, then Big Bang never occurred?

Morbert

shanered wrote: »

The scientists contradict themselves here I believe.

1. If the wave form of electrons only collapse into particles upon observation, then who was there to observe Big Bang?

2. If Big Bang was the moment at which matter came into existence and no one was there to observe this event, then all that would still exist to this very moment would be only waves of potential having no form. Ostensibly, then Big Bang never occurred?

The laws of quantum mechanics are indeed often written from the perspective of an observer. In classical mechanics, you have an objective "model" that every observer agrees upon. In quantum mechanics, you have statistical operators that are subjective insofar as they report the probabilities of experimental/observational outcomes, relative to a particular observer.

But this formalism doesn't mean observers are necessary for the universe to exist. Decoherent histories, for example, is a generalisation of the the instrumentalist Copenhagen formalism which removes the interface between the observer and the observed, and can be applied to cosmology, as can Feynmann's sum over histories formalism, as can the Many-Worlds interpretation.

Even if we couldn't, the instrumentalist nature of quantum laws doesn't mean we have to invoke the notion of measurement "bringing stuff into existence". It just means our laws are limited to telling us what we do and don't observe in nature.

Labarbapostiza

shanered wrote: »

2. If Big Bang was the moment at which matter came into existence and no one was there to observe this event, then all that would still exist to this very moment would be only waves of potential having no form. Ostensibly, then Big Bang never occurred?

No. We know the Big Bang occurred, because it never ended. The astronomical observations are, that the matter in the universe is debris streaming out from a massive explosion.

There are in fact good computer simulations showing the universe winding back to the original explosion, but it's all the same explosion anyway.

I think this whole requiring an observer for a quantum event to occur thing is a nonsensical distortion. I remember a few years ago, the various newspapers ran a story about some "scientist" claiming that by observing the universe. we were threaten our own existence, because the human observers might cause the wave function of the universe to collapse into a particle, and then we'd all be screwed. That's not really how it works.

shanered

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

No. We know the Big Bang occurred, because it never ended.
I'm sure this hasn't been proven yet...

The astronomical observations are, that the matter in the universe is debris streaming out from a massive explosion.

The Big Bang Theory has many reasons to doubt it, heres a link to the top 30

There are in fact good computer simulations showing the universe winding back to the original explosion, but it's all the same explosion anyway.

Computer simulation often are quite limited when simulating our reality with its nearly infinite factors of influence.

I think this whole requiring an observer for a quantum event to occur thing is a nonsensical distortion. I remember a few years ago, the various newspapers ran a story about some "scientist" claiming that by observing the universe. we were threaten our own existence, because the human observers might cause the wave function of the universe to collapse into a particle, and then we'd all be screwed. That's not really how it works.

There is a certain amount of truth to the madness of this claim which was clearly taken a "little" out of context by the newspapers.

It's entirely a question which may be answered by a theory such as simulation theory, where we are almost a a simulation running similar to potential energy stored on RAM in computers and the wave function only formulates as we observe it. Its a bit if a tree falls in a woods and nobody is there to observe it, does it make a sound.

Labarbapostiza

shanered wrote: »

It's entirely a question which may be answered by a theory such as simulation theory, where we are almost a a simulation running similar to potential energy stored on RAM in computers and the wave function only formulates as we observe it. Its a bit if a tree falls in a woods and nobody is there to observe it, does it make a sound.

Okay, we can do this both ways; the bit on a ram chip or the tree in the forest.

If a tree falls in the forest, if no one witnesses it fall, has it really fallen. A Buddhist Koan; those wise gnomes the Buddhist monks; real rocket scientists who never quite got around to building a rocket. What can the prospective observer say about the state of the tree without checking. They can say the tree has both fallen, and is in an unfallen state. Or they can say they don't know what state the tree is in. But it is both fallen and unfallen before it's checked. And then we can definitely say which state it's in. But then again it's not that simple. If we send an observer into the forest to find the tree and verify whether it's fallen or hasn't. We may a strong feeling based on the statistical observation of travel times that our researcher has reached the tree. But we haven't heard back from them yet. So, the researcher we believe is either in one or the other of two possible states. They have seen the tree is fallen, or they see the tree hasn't. They will remain in those two states, until they return to base camp and let us know what they've seen, then they collapse into a single state. But we can't tell things like, that as he arrived at the site of the tree, the universe magically split in two, in one universe the tree was fallen and in the other it wasn't.

Capt'n Midnight

shanered wrote: »

The scientists contradict themselves here I believe.

1. If the wave form of electrons only collapse into particles upon observation, then who was there to observe Big Bang?

It's like Schroedinger's cat.

It took a while before we looked in the box , turns out the cat was still alive.

Labarbapostiza

Something interesting I heard recently (not sure of the source).

One of the theories of the universe, is once it reaches its' maximum expansion, it will begin to contract. Time will also contract, and in the end; even time will vanish, as if had never been here (or there).

I think that might answer an interesting question. Which is, if our universe is the result of a quantum fluctuation, why don't we see universes popping into existence all around us. The answer could be that they are, but since they expand and contract, giving a net negation of all their dimensions, including their time, if they have it, they can have no interact with our universe.

shanered

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

Something interesting I heard recently (not sure of the source).

One of the theories of the universe, is once it reaches its' maximum expansion, it will begin to contract. Time will also contract, and in the end; even time will vanish, as if had never been here (or there).

I think that might answer an interesting question. Which is, if our universe is the result of a quantum fluctuation, why don't we see universes popping into existence all around us. The answer could be that they are, but since they expand and contract, giving a net negation of all their dimensions, including their time, if they have it, they can have no interact with our universe.

I have to say I like this thought, it kind of follows the universal code that everything tries to reach an equilibrium and all positives are met with negitives eventually and swing the other way, fits in with the whole dark matter to counter actual matter etc. etc.


On a side note, how cool or maybe not so cool would negative time be!

Labarbapostiza

shanered wrote: »

On a side note, how cool or maybe not so cool would negative time be!

There are theories (some of them mine). One thing we kind of know, is that the difference between the past and the present, is entropy seems to increase as time progresses If as time reversed, everything followed the same path as entropy had followed as time was expanding, then as time reversed, the world would be experienced like a fried egg hopping out of the frying pan and back into the egg, where it would then be driven back to the farm, where the van driver was driving by reversing his van, while judging the road by looking at where he'd been, then the egg would squeeze it's way back up the chicken. In that universe, our thoughts would come from the future, and we wouldn't experience the present as reversing. We could be in the contraction phase of the universe now, but not realise it.

That theory is unlikely, for many good reasons. One idea I've had is when the universe reaches its' maximum expansion, then entropy would reverse. So as time contracted, living beings like us would experience this contraction as progressing like we experience time now. We see the universe shrinking. There is a theory (not mine) that an essential element of human consciousness is entropy. (The theory is from the early 20th century. )