Observer-Dependant Models of Physics

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by Reiku, Sep 19, 2008.

  1. Reiku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,238
    (This is not a flame war of psuedofilled babble. This is a general investigation in physics history and dealings with observer-dependant models of physics.)

    Time in Relativity and what it May Imply

    What if you where to be told, that when big bang happened, just shortly after, a big crunch also occurred? A beginning and an end, from Alpha shortly comes Omega? Well, Einstein’s relativity theory says exactly this.

    It turns out, that the past and the future are happening right now, which would seem to indicate there is no such thing as a past and a future, but exists as an illusory of the mind.

    Einstein’s papers allows time travel to be a theoretical possibility, and that a man can be allowed according to the laws of physics, travel backward in time, and this would somehow suggest that for this to be true, somehow, the past exists right now.

    This means, that somehow everything we come to do, say or write, is already written into space and time itself, or better said yet, everything we ever come to experience, has strangely enough already happened.

    Counterintuitive?

    Perhaps it is, but that is because our sense of perception, our linear way of viewing this four dimensional world clothes a maya over our eyes, a veil of deception and illusion. Einstein, along the same line of thought, and not quoting him word by word, bluntly remarked that only fools believed that the past and future where real.

    He wasn’t a fan of models involving the observer (*), especially after the discovery that the mere act of an observation could bring about such drastic differences in the world, but he did realize the universe and perception was closely related to time, the now believed imaginary dimension of space.

    I admit it seems strange, that we can come to know a past, but not know a future, especially when we are supposed to have already lived it, and still must do. But I remind you how strange it was for us to recognize that a moving observer experienced a slowing down of the time dimension, and how around certain strong gravitational objects, we could find distortions that opened holes in space and time itself.

    But since space is not a fixed vacuum, neither is time, and evidently, from big bang to big crunch, anything with an ‘’operation’’ of events are merely illusions. Without the mind, there is no duration of time, no moments in space, and everything as I once said, may as well just happen in one great flash.

    (*) – he may have unconsciously created relativity (especially special relativity for such a reason), because it is purely an observer-dependant model.

    It’s All Laid Out

    So our histories are all laid out before us, and all events seem to be frozen in time itself, like a fly stuck in amber. For us to have a predetermined existence like this, where all events are ready to come out of this frozen state by the appearance of mind, then time as we know it, is not only connected to the linear nature of the mind, but mind may itself be time.

    This is not a wild theory, or by speculative thought. This is based on relativity, and what it has to say about a world that is somehow predetermined, and all events have happened, as though in one gigantic flash of existence, and we seem to drag along these sketches made in space and time, and we somehow make sense of a present time, and aware of a past and future.

    Time without mind, is not linear by nature. It’s everywhere, and all at once. In a geometrical picture, one that can make sense of an expanding balloon analogy, with a wobbly surface. Except with mind, it is a whole new game. Time doesn’t seem as though it is everywhere, and there is a knowledge of the past, but no knowledge of the future. And the knowledge we do gain from the future, is only ever experienced in a present time, while some part of the nature of thought, diminishes into a realm of thought, and thus creates a past. This is a very linear nature of time.

    No Time No Observer

    In fact, there may be no such thing as a time dimension, without an observer. (And we are not talking about atomic observers here, since they hold no powers of recording their surroundings. This remains a unique property of the human, and possibly other species.) It may turn out, that time does not progress the evolution of things, but is rather a concept we have adopted for such a phenom.

    This is certainly a strange way of thinking to adopt, but it seems to be revolutional. It would mean that time truly is an imaginary dimension of space, and isn’t as real as once previously thought. Not as real anyway, without someone there to make sense of it. You can even deal with an evolution of systems without the need of time. You can simply detail the universe down into entropy, and atomic reactions caused by the primal force. Movement is an intrinsic property of matter and systems of matter, so things will always tend to evolve some way. It just turns out that the evolution of this particular universe, seems so astronomical on statistical terms.

    Granted, there must be some really strange universes, superstring universes in Everett’s Parallel Universe Theory (*), and ours on the fabric scale of spacetime, may not seem so complicated in this universe. However, one thing does make this universe unique, and that’s the observer. In Hawkings model of Cosmology, all the universes in the multiverse theory, have a wave function that spreads out over all the universes that are possible to contain life. The wave function is very high in this universe because of human observation, and his graph’s probability curve details this.

    (*) – I say this, because superstring theory could still work in another universe, or branch, if that branch contains a correct amount of spatial and temporal dimensions. In Everett’s theory, there are mutually an infinite amount of universes, so in theory, at least an infinite amount of universes could hold the laws capable of sustaining matter as strings. It’s really a matter of understanding that the infinity talked about in this theory, potentially states all the weirdest universes you can think of, exists.

    Bringing back the importance of the observer like this, in a parallel universe model, is very important to an observer-dependant model of the universe, which is said to be required in a Grand Theory of Everything. Even if the final theory is not solipsistic in content, it will still proclaim a portion of the theory to be an observer-model chunk, since relativity is an observer-dependant model.

    It does become difficult however not to resort to a solipsistic nature of a theory, than to objectivism, since somehow physics does state that the observer brings their own reality about, and exists as a subjective dimension, rather than any objective qualities. Subjectivism is probably simpler to accept, if it was understood, that even if reality continued to exist, it would be pointless to talk about it, unless someone was there to define it. In a sense, this is a relative view, where the observer is relative to the universe.

    We somehow add detail to the universe, which would be void if we had not taken that first intelligent thought on its beauty. It may be even simpler, if one just said that reality as we know it, would not exist if we where not around to know, and its this knowing that is the true reality, to our limitations, and also some back-reaction, were the limitations of the universe, could be us, from a relative sense.

    But when the solutions of reality was constructed, we found solutions to parallel universes, from a relative sense, with equally an infinite amount of worlds just like this one, but ever-so-slightly different. Just like how we predicted that an electron posited an infinite amount of ghostly electrons in the vacuum, we learned there where many of us, existing in their own present time. And this took away our importance.

    Everything Can Still Exist Without the Observer!

    Of course, it could be argued in a negative direction. Instead, everything is objective, and there is only an illusion of subjectivism. This would mean that this particular universe evolved independently of the observer, and even the observers eventual appearance by its very evolution. All of this was simply just, and no observer was ever really needed. That makes our appearance in this universe, very miniscule indeed, since we don’t even have any special place in the evolution of our very lives, and any of the thoughts we may come to have, any things we come to do, or even the many things we may come to write, is nothing but, it simply is.

    That can make us quite inferior, but to redeem some kind of hope in our lives, we do have the importance of communication, and our thoughts are not alone. Evan Harris Walker, a famous physicist once said,

    ‘’The observer – indeed the whole system are coupled to the extent that agreement on the final state of the system that is involved… The will arises from the pool of all consciousness – a pool formed by small contributions of each without spatial or temporal bounds.’’

    Our ability to communicate on the universal scale we can with each other, gives rise to a sea of thought, and even though there are individual thinking systems there, there is still unity in a unique sense, that somehow everyone makes up one whole of something, that is, as Evan Walker says, exists in no dimensions. It’s certainly not pseudoscientific to think this could be true, because we are living properties of one part that would not make sense if the other part did not exit. If we stacked all of this up, it would still be tiny if we squeezed this analogy into infinity, since it contains no dimensions, and it would still look miniscule on the scale of spacetime itself. So what could Dr Harris be referring to then? I’m being serious as well, because I am not even sure what on means by a ‘’thing’’ existing in zero-dimensions.

    Well, it’s not even zero-dimensional. We can no longer thing in dimensions, zero and some, but instead, something that cannot be explained physically. This may mean in the end, that consciousness cannot really be explained by matter alone. There may be some other aspects of it that will remain to philosophical for physics to give total explanations on, mind you, I don’t know if this is what Dr Harris was meaning.

    Going back to parallel universes, the deterministic reality is an important thing to consider from relativity, but the transactional interpretation says some interesting things concerning the wave function. The deterministic reality does not exist in the local system however, but does, when it interacts with a ‘’stroke’’ that comes from the future.

    As Hoyle said, we can’t deal with a deterministic reality if things alone go from past to future, but instead, there is also a future to past stroke, which condenses the wave function.

    ‘’In analogy to a two-stroke engine, quantum mechanics is just one of the cylinders, stroking from past to future. The other cylinder serves to condense the wave function, and it strikes from future to past…. The cylinder which strokes from future to past is directed by intelligence, and through the condensation of the wave function our thoughts are controlled.’’

    The Wave Function in Objectivism

    In the transactional interpretation, there is a ‘’handshake’’ in time, as Dr Cramer puts it. An Echo Wave and an Offer Wave leave from an initial position, where the oscillate throughout the time dimension, one moving into the past and the other moving into the future, and they return, to square into the final systems stage, and this the condensation of the wave function. But by Cramer terminology, it’s preferred ‘’Transaction.’’

    This process of creating a system, is something I see somewhat parallel to what David Bohm once said,

    ‘’We have to consider the system attentively trying out all possibilities, out of which only one actuality emerges.’’

    Indeed the attentively seeking echo and offer waves come together with out of which one real system can emerge. The best way I imagine it, is by a simple analogy. You can think of a massive thundercloud, and eventually that cloud will condense to make droplets of rain, and this is what the wave function does. It collapses, and forms actual systems of solid matter. But in this theory, the future does not determine the past, but the past can determine the future in a statistical way. This means that the emitter is given a ‘’privileged’’ role. The last few theories can provide models without the aid of an observer-dependency, as it can supplying them.

    They provide sufficient models that it could be argued to be enough. There is still however the question of relativity, and its relations to observer-dependant models, but usually, its not questioned right now, considering we have far to go to answer all the cosmic difficulties and complex factors. Maybe the case is even simpler. Maybe the universe is far too complex, to ever be reduced into a single equation.

    I certainly don’t believe that we could simplify all those variables so confidently. There will be some order we haven’t overlooked, or one order not explainable. I think any hope of holding onto this, is just stupid. Again, there are too many variables to account for, an infinite amount to be exact.

    The reason why I say this is because this universe yields infinite values throughout. One side yields an infinite amount of space. The other yields an infinite amount of time. And this gives rise to possibilities, and they are infinite in nature too.

    (I'll have more to say later.)
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Reiku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,238
    The Primal Force

    The primal force is the original force that existed before the separation into gravitation, electromagnetic and strong and weak fields. This force is called Quantum Gravity, and it is very unique. It consists of all the other forces, which would make it a compound force (I say compound, in the same sense of let’s say, magnesium oxide, made of magnesium and oxygen.)

    But unlike a classical compound, where it is hard to reverse the chemical processes, the primal force split apart quite easily into simpler components. Smaller parts that made the whole, and they exist as the four forces we know today in physics.

    Why did these forces break off?
    .
    At this energy, spacetime becomes highly distorted, and eventually ‘’doors’’ can open due to the curvature, and these topological openings are called wormholes. It turns out, that during the 70’s and 80’s, it was well-known that singularities posited problems in the cosmological order of things, because all physics and all math break down at this level, where variables take on infinite values……(**), and wormholes took the stage in replace of a gravitational singularity at the beginning of time.

    This immeasurable part of spacetime, having itself an infinite curvature, (or at least an infinitesimally small), was deemed nonsense, because why would God allow a totally lawless region of spacetime? Steven Hawking challenged the question, and said singularities didn’t even need to exist. It turned out that Hawking could remove singularities mathematically from spacetime. It depended also on what state our universe was in.


    (**) - (C. Sivaram1) - Indian Institute of Astrophysics, 56034 Bangalore, India
    Received: 8 July 1987


    Hawking uses concepts like imaginary time, singularities** and parallel universes to explain the universe. He explained that there shouldn’t be just one singularity, the kind we associate to the beginning of time, but there should mutually be an infinite amount of singularities located throughout spacetime. More importantly, is that he no longer believes they ever existed, and that quantum mechanics even ruled the very beginning of time.

    ** - Using differential equations, functions like f(x)=1/x finds singular points at x=0 and the values seem to expand into infinity ± ∞. This is the similar analogy to what happens in a big bang singularity. Things blow into unimaginable proportions.

    The Universe of Many Universes

    But it seems, that one universe is not enough, because it would not appear stable from a quantum mechanical viewpoint. By treating the universe in a quantum state, even in its past, would suggest the universe isn’t really stable, unless surrounded by a family of other quantum universes, just as an atom is not stable, unless surrounded by a number of other atoms.

    If the rules are consistent in this way, then all these universes spontaneously arose like the gaseous appearance of air in a boiling pot of water (*). And each of these bubbles (possibly an infinite amount of them), all lay out together, like films superpositioned together into infinity. Each one of these sheets play a statistical part on all the other sheets, because of unique relations due to the wave function.

    (*) – The chemical process of water in hydrogen and oxygen, the process is symbolized by this expression \((2H_{2}O > 2H_{2}+O_{2})\).

    Standing as only a solution to relativity, and cosmology at large, to the quantum nature of particles themselves, parallel universes may posit just as many problems as it may solve. Granted, parallel universe theory may not be speculated upon as widely-accepted, because of a vote made a few years back showed that more scientists preferred the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics, but still a large number of scientists and usually the best in the mainstream, do take camp with parallel universes.

    But what problems could we be talking about here?

    Well, different ones take on different areas of the theory, showing there is in fact a spectra of problems, showing more than one inconsistency. One is that parallel universes (even though it would wipe out initial starting conditional problems), there should still be evidence today of some of these initial conditions, and there is nothing. Some scientists have resorted to the Observer Effect of quantum mechanics to shape up this problem.

    Another major difficulty to perhaps more ‘’believe in’’, than anything else, is that with the simple flip of a coin 100 times will yield the creation of a little over \(10^{30}\) universes! This easy creation prospect of the parallel universe model is still difficult today for many scientists to accept.

    It has also been argued that a mirror-symmetry in time could posit some questions and possibly problems on a parallel universe model. This symmetry is better called an Omega Point in time, where the universe meets some final stopping period where things (including time) moved in a negative direction. I shall be careful not to say ‘’forward’’, because this can mean that time has a flow, but time has no such a flow whatsoever. Time is not a river.

    Physicist Joseph Gerver said that Everett’s interpretation of parallel universes did not take into consideration frames that moved backwards in time. The interpretation should not only allow the splitting of universes as time moved forward, but also allow some kind of evolution when things moved backwards.

    And what of it? I hear you say?

    Well, if things where to split backwards with an evolution also, then the entropy of how the universe got into the final state at the Omega Point, would not reverse identically to revert back to the beginning with the correct information to how it started. In other words, Gerver wanted to see the universe end in the way it had started, and in a parallel universe model, this would not happen. So what would this say about our beginning?

    It would mean that the beginning was more illogical than how it could have ended, and this seemed like nonsense to Gerver. Now, with the information from observations confirming the accelerated expansion of the universe, it is now believed there is no such special symmetry in time, but Gerver’s view still holds if there was such a symmetry.

    Another prominent scientist, Dr Evan Harris Walker, preferred a different theory to that of the parallel universe model, who chose to have a type of hidden variable theory. I myself don’t like the parallel universe theory, because an infinite amount seems troublesome. Mind you, Bryce DeWitt was one of the first physicists I know of that posited a finite multiverse, one with about \(10^100\) universes, instead of an infinite amount.

    I personally can’t believe that every single interaction and observation made, whether atomic or not, do universes get created so easily. I’m too uneasy to believe that everyday my travels across the water create millions and millions of universes. And how do we really work out which universe is the true universe? Is it so simple to say each universe is self-contained, and that no universe to another is unique? Isn’t that just as bad?

    It can even make some of us revert to some Anthropic Interpretation, something which Hawking admitted himself to possibly becoming faithful to.

    The Observer And Parallel Universes

    There is no such thing as a collapse in the wave function in parallel universe theory. Instead, we have an interaction, and we have a seperation, called the splitting and merging of universes, each time either an observation is made, or when two things come into contact, even two simple electrons.

    If you flipped a coin 100 times, you would get a little over \(10^{30}\) universes would ''pop'' into existence. Everytime you observe a friend in the street, at least one other universe says you did not, and it spontaneously comes into existence.

    The human mind is split - in a serious way. Your mind, along with all the matte in the universe, seperates from the mother-branch, and comes into existence, with talking walking, ''us''.

    If any observer-dependant model is hard to believe, it would be one in a parallel universe model, because our action, can literally, make other universes come alive.

    The Imaginary Dimension of Space

    Time has been a philosophical debate since the dawn of man, and since then, it has been cast in some particularly weird pictures, anagrams and abstractions, and only with the appearance of physics, can we now say we have a scientific picture too.

    We no longer think of time being linear and non-linear together. We also can’t view it from absolute point as being either subliminal or objective.

    In physics, the presence of a human observer from her point of view, time is seen to have a directionality, one without recourse. And she is dragged along with it, at the speed of light. This is purely from an imaginary point of view, but you actually make quite a long journey in this dimension each second. This forward direction of time, somehow makes a distinction of some past and the distinction of a knowable future.

    As far as we know, this is the only way our brains can function properly at a conscious level. But this is the experience of an observer. Their own personal experience of one side of the phenomena. There is also a non-linear nature of time, independent of the mind.

    In this picture, time is like the wobbly surface of an expanding balloon. Nothing quite linear about it. Somehow, the observer breaks free of this, and views time in a completely different way. But, we tend to say what the observer experiences is an illusion, and that in reality, time is not linear. But other scientists see it the other way around.

    Without getting into the dispute again, we should cover the relativistic view of time, because this is the most unique picture there is, and possibly the most disturbing. Because time is not absolute, the past and the future don’t really exist. The future and the past, turns out to be equally significant to the present, since the present time is the only ever real time we ever come to experience.

    Einstein’s papers published in the 1920’s, described time travel, and gave scenario’s where a man could travel back in time before his reunion of his grandmother and grandfather, and make sure they never meet. The paradox is here, how could he have been born, if his mother or father had not been born, because his grandparents never met?

    But for the past to allow this, for us to travel into the past, it must suggest that the past is happening right now. The past and future has its own present time, alongside the present time we know. Time could no longer be viewed as a river that had a flow, because time was rather seen as momentary fleeting flashes, or starts and stops. This discontinuous nature led to the ordered existence we come to know, and simply expect.

    In a transactional interpretational model of parallel universes, INFORMATION from other universes tunel into this universe (but this can now be challenged due to the information paradox of QM.) But if other universes do exist, their states determine what states (for instance), our universe may end up in.

    Hoyle was a grand believer, that information from other universes condensed all universes, maybe an infinite amount, to such a point that two-time physics could answer the past as using the future time state of universes as conjugates.

    This is also known as two-time measurements, and i will talk about that later.
     
    Last edited: Sep 19, 2008
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Reiku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,238
    No wan gonna say anything

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,967
    Reiku---

    I've moved similar posts to Pseudoscience in the past. What made you think I wouldn't this time?
     
  8. Reiku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,238
    Maybe because it is about phsyics history? Does that no longer count in a phsyics forum?
     
  9. electrafixtion Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    949
    Just so you know, I am reading and enjoying this. There is a GREAT DEAL of meat here so please understand it might take a while to contemplate and ask a few questions about.
     
  10. Reiku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,238
    Please do. I personally think, without being pompous, that i have a plethora of knowledge on these subjects. I would appreciate anyones questions.

    Thank you again.
     

Share This Page