# Determinism and the Big Bang

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by markl323, Jan 28, 2009.

1. ### quantum_waveContemplating the "as yet" unknownValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,612
You are right, I did post before reading your reply to iceaura. Also, I didn't get through the pages in the linked posts, only skimmed them.

I felt that I should give my little rant about infinities because I am not on-board with the defeat of determinism by the QM theory of uncertainty that is characterized by the wave function. My view is that determinism is defeated by the infinites of time and energy and space.

But contrary to QM's wave function, my view is that the particle/wave duality occurs because the energy changes from particle to wave and back to particle at an infinitesimal level that is too small to be observed or even detected. But the energy of a particle is either in wave form or particle form at any given instant. The wave form is a spherically expanding quantum wave that expands out of a high density spot. The particle form is the collapse of energy that occurs when a quantum of energy is accumulated in the space where expanding quantum waves overlap. That quantum of energy collapses into a high density spot which "bounces" off of a limit of energy density and bursts into an expanding quantum wave.

Sorry for this second rant but I wanted to point out that to me the energy of a particle always has location and momentum, we just can't detect it. There is a reality at the quantum level in my view. This view has been taken to mean that determinism is supported by this reality, but as I said, to me determinism is defeated by the infinities.

3. ### cluelusshusbund+ Public Dilemma +Valued Senior Member

Messages:
6,781
Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund
O... an i dont thank people EVER deserve punishment... much less to roast in hell for eternity.!!!

Well like i said... i foller the evidence whare ever it leads... an im not certan that EVERTHANG is determined... i jus dont know of anyithang that doesnt have a cause... an for sure the idea of free-will is essential to Christanity... but i suspect that the notion of free-will was aroun long befor the story about the "son-of-God" cam about.!!!

But im not hung up on determinism an free-will bein a religous issue... it woud still be an issue whether Christanity esisted or not... the only reason i mentoned "Religon" was because you brout up the queston of determinists havin an agenda (which you didnt specify)... but i did give a specific agenda that Christinaty has which depends on free-will bein true as a bazzarr justificaton for eternal punishment.!!!

So you consider it a religion because i dont thank people deserve punishment... if so... im oK wit that.!!!

Messages:
6,781

7. ### quantum_waveContemplating the "as yet" unknownValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,612
and I'm saying that we can't have all of the quality and quantity of information because there is an infinite amount of it, and so "thangs still are not predictable".
In my view you mean? You said it, "an aparent uncertainity". I'm not an advocate of the uncertainty principle. I mean I don't sign on to how it is interpreted to mean that at the quantum level, where the wave function roams, there is no reality. I say there is reality at all times for all waves and particles. Our limited ability to observe and separate waves and particles at the quantum level is because we don't have the instruments to observe at that level without affecting the observations.

The view that locality exists is often interpreted to support determinism. And yet to me, it does not support determinism because the history of the wave/particles interactions is infinite and had no beginning. Without a beginning, there is no determinism in my view.

8. ### cluelusshusbund+ Public Dilemma +Valued Senior Member

Messages:
6,781

As our ability to colect informaton improves so does the accuracy of our predcictons... an thats evidence which continues to pont mor an mor toward determinism.!!!

I suspect thats true.!!!

Whether or not "God" is the orgin of life... evoluton still occurs... an whether you'r rite about a beginin or not... as far as i know... all thangs are still caused... but even if ther wasnt a beginin... how does that brake the causal chane of events which now occurs... an if thangs somtimes do hapen for "no reason"... how woud that equate to free-will.???

9. ### laladopitime for change.Registered Senior Member

Messages:
1,193
I think possibly everything has already happened and everything that already exists will happen again.

The big bang is like a ball bouncing across court every time it hits the ground its a new "big bang"... Some bounces may be longer and higher than others.

10. ### Billy TUse Sugar Cane Alcohol car FuelValued Senior Member

Messages:
23,198
post 47 was accidentally destroyed by edit - I thought I was making post 58, which was written in word off line, but infact I posted that word text here. (I had "edit opened" 47 to copy into word as I wanted to include part of 47 in 58. That part is still available in 58, but the rest is lost unless a mod can recover from some archive.) I have slight dyslexia so I often copy entire post I want to reply to into word first then make my reply there so word can help catch my dyslexic errors before posting.

Quantum-wave quoted some part of original post 47 in post 49.

Last edited by a moderator: Feb 3, 2009
11. ### quantum_waveContemplating the "as yet" unknownValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,612
To each his own. I don't see it that way because if the present cannot be determined from the past, and if all of the information is not available, then I don't see any evidence pointing more and more to determinism.
I may be mistaken but I was thinking that determinism required a beginning, a start point from which the precise particle interactions would occur sequentially. This is the Big Bang supposedly if we are responding to the OP.
Again, only my personal view, but in my view, if there is an infinite past there is no first cause from which all things can be determined. Maybe that is not a requirement of determinism, I don't know.
I was defining free will as:

12. ### quantum_waveContemplating the "as yet" unknownValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,612
You are right, we agree in the respect that the future is not deterministically set.
You talk as if dealing with infinities is possible given the ability to track back in time. I don't think such a thing is possible but let's not debate the "infinities" question since it isn't the major determining factor in yours or my view of why there is no determinism. The infinites factor comes into play with those who think that the past determines the future in the particle interaction sense and a precise sequence of determined particle interactions. That is not us, right.
I think I understand quite well the issue you suggest I don't grasp. You can read into what I said that I have the popular view but you could sift through my posts and see that I have a wider understanding than you attribute to me as the popular POV. No offense taken, no offense meant on my part.
OK, but the theory is theory because we cannot observe the details of the interaction. The details are there in my view. There is a distinction between various schools of thought about what uncertainty means. Some say that there is no reality until observations are made. Some like me (and it sounds like your view too) say that the reality is there but we can't observe it fully.

13. ### gluonBannedBanned

Messages:
512
Even though in these studies I have come to use the phrase ‘’time is relative to the observer,’’ from strictly a geometrical sense where we feel or sense some flow to time, the term has also meant to distinguish something larger as well. On the cosmological scale, or universal scale and even possibly a multi-verse scale, time according to a famous equation is not really relevant.

It’s only when you come to the observer and how the observer uses time as a useful tool to catalogue events made in instantaneous frames of space. On the grand scale of the universe, the Wheeler-de Witt Equation – with these measuring devices, the only interpretation of time arises from being relative to an observer!

The Wheeler-de Witt equation is given as:

$\hat{H}|\psi >=0$

The Wheeler-de Witt equation uses a non-relativistic approach to its parts $\hat{H}|\psi >$ and $|\psi >$ . The equation put in simplistic terms, does not care for any time-evolution as would be found in a time-dependent description of the Schrodinger Wave Function (who created the first wave-function of matter). The psi-wave function $|\psi >$ does not refer to the spatial wave function which is a complex-function. Instead, it refers to all properties of a relativistic universe, such as its geometry and the distortions inherent in the quantized vacuum of space. This would mean that any time-dependence would fail. It’s not concerned with how things unravel inside it.

Ultimately, the Wheeler-de Witt equation is non-local; this means that asymptotic time (the time we all come to experience) would be best described as a local theory, making time essentially local relative to any observer. So we do indeed end up with a local and non-local description of time. You may also remember my theory suggesting that the universe may not have a preferred origin being local or non-local, but rather both.

If you could theoretically be an observer who could sit outside of space and time*, you wouldn’t notice an expanding universe, in fact, it would seem essentially frozen to itself. So the observer would note ‘’the universe is essentially unchanging.’’

So from a cosmological analysis, we can see that the universe Φ is a frozen entity, a system that is completely unchanging. The Wheeler-de Witt equation is a proof of non-localized dimensions and existing alongside it, is the Schrodinger Equation, which for some observer posits a linear time and also a local frame of reference (or dimension, if you like). Since quantum mechanics states that everything must follow its rules, that must mean that consciousness follows a specific condition where it does not exist in space, but is part of a linear existence of observations through time. This linear existence measures motion within the universe Φ and some usage of time as a measuring rod, but most importantly, it exhibits a local nature to time, which would mean time in general is local.

The point of this, is that on a global scale, it could easily be shown that everything may as well be determined (from the universes point of view) since internal change never happens.

14. ### quantum_waveContemplating the "as yet" unknownValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,612
You have gone to a lot of effort to pursue this line of reasoning. I read it twice and it didn't strike a chord for me. I don't get it.

What is the point of saying that QM states that everything must follow its rules? QM doesn't say that as far as I know. QM is more of a debate around a set of theories. We have reached as deep into observations of events at the quantum level as we can go. And then, beyond that point, theories take over that are still at the center of debate and have been for the better part of one hundred years.

I guess what you are saying is philosophical or at least too intellectual for me. I don't accept conclusions from research unless I can understand how the conclusions make sense. I'm not there yet with your idea of local and non-local time or time relative to the observer. I mentioned that in my view time passes at the same rate in all frames. Does "time relative to the observer" allow for my view of time or are you taking a different stance by saying that there is a difference in how time passes depending on the frame?

Edit: There was a recent discussion about time in this thread stared by DNA100.

Last edited: Feb 2, 2009
15. ### gluonBannedBanned

Messages:
512
What is it that you don't get quantum wave?

Essentially, i was saying, that on a cosmological scale there is no time-evolution from a Wheeler-de Witt equational hypothesis, and that a predetermined universe is just about as safe as it can get (conceptually-wise), that a never-changing universe is akin to exampling a predetermined universe. Afterall, in a never-changing universe, there can't be a definite change of events which can be measured as being non-determined.

What i mean by QM being the pinnacle of how everything muct work, is because if we sw QM breaking down, then the entire theory of quantum mechanics would be in jeapardy. So everything must follow quantum rules in every corner of the universe.

When i say time is relative to the observer, i simply mean that for any evolution contrary to the Wheeler-de-Witt equation in this universe to happen, must require that time is relative to the observer, since it is us who makes these markers in space as moments in time. So time is essentially frozen at a cosmological scale, but internally, there are observers who measure such an evolution occur.

16. ### quantum_waveContemplating the "as yet" unknownValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,612
I might have discovered my problem. You never give links when you bring up concepts and I have sometimes followed behind and given links and read up on what you were talking about. This time I didn't bother until your last post.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler-deWitt_equation

You could have linked us to your preferred Wheeler-deWitt page but you didn't. I am not familiar with the theoretical physics it describes from a mathematical perspective. The reconciliation of quantum mechanics and general relativity, in my view will be accomplished by understanding more about the quantum realm and in measures smaller than the Planck regime.

Space and time might not be coupled and if General Relativity were to stand solely on that coupling (which it doesn't) then reconciliation between QM and GR isn't an interesting effort to me. What stands from GR is the accurate ability to describe gravity. What falls is the curvature of spacetime which won't be needed if gravity is caused by gravity waves associated with quantum action within mass.

Last edited: Feb 3, 2009
17. ### DinosaurRational SkepticValued Senior Member

Messages:
4,766
This POV comes up time & again, indicating a naive understanding of Quantum Theory & the Uncertainty Principle.
The mathematics mentioned in previous posts is a bit esoteric & is understood by very few people. There was a time when I could handle the mathematics but did not really understand the implications.

There is much mathematics which can be dealt with for purposes of passing exams, but which does not convey any intuitive knowledge of the entities described by the mathematics. One obvious example is the geometry of n-dimensional objects where n is greater than 3. I can prove that a unit 5D cube has a diagonal whose length is SquareRoot(5), but I cannot begin to visualize such a simple 5D object. Similarly, being able to cope with the mathematics of Quantum Theory does not help one to develop an intuitive understanding of quantum phenomena.

Instead of trying to understand the mathematics, consider some of the experimental evidence: For example: Bose-Eienstein condensates (? My spelling of Bose).

Bose-Einstein condensates occur when a group of atoms are cooled to almost absolute zero. At such a low temperature, the momentum of the particles is known to a high degree of precision: It is very close to zero. Id est: the particles are almost motionless. When this state occurs, the individual atoms lose their identity because their location becomes very blurred. Each atom seems to occupy a volume much bigger than the typical volume of an atom. This is experimental evidence supporting UC.

The Uncertainty Principle claims that a quantum entity cannot have both a precise position and a precise momentum. It is a statement about the nature of quantum entities, not a statement about the limitations of measurement technology.

Many Worlds & Pilot Wave interpretations of Quantum Phenomena are desperate attempts to deny the probabilistic nature of quantum processes. These interpretations are believed and advocated by some very intelligent people with serious academic credentials.

I am convinced that these people cannot accept explanations which are incredibly counterintuitive and which indicate that the human mind is not capable of having an intuitive understanding of quantum processes. Rather than accept counterintuitive interpretations, they prefer understandable explanations that are Ad hoc or in some cases, absurd. Consider the following.
• The Many Worlds concept explains Quantum theory by claiming that each quantum process with two or more probabilistic outcomes results in the creation of two or more complete universes: One for each possible outcome.

This requires that each new universe create additional universes for each subsequent quantum process. While there might not be an infinity of quantum processes occurring each second, there are surely more than billions of such processes occurring each second. Each such process requires the creation of many billions of universes per second, with each of the new universes creating billions more per second.

While there are some problems with the Copenhagen & other interpretations, my intuition tells me that Many Worlds is absurd, although easily understood. I wonder if it really explains away the probabilistic nature of quantum data. Cosnider a quantum process with many possbile outcomes, some of which are associated with very low proababilities. Perhaps many Worlds does away with probability from the POV of an observer in one resulting universe, but does it really make the process causal rather than probabilistic from the POV of an observer who can view more than one universe?

• Pilot Wave explanations postulate reverse causality. I suppose that some people would rather have reverse causality than no causality. To me, effects occurring prior to their causes seems absurd in the absence of actual evidence that it occurs. It seems contrary to the nature of what is normally thought of as cause-effect phenomena.

It is claimed the Pilot Wave concept provides an explanation consistent with observations of quantum processes. A claim that Leprechaun Magic is responsible is also consistent with observations, but I would not accept it without some supporting evidence.

One can (in theory) take a motion picture of various quantum processes and play it backwards. For many processes, one cannot decide which is the time reversed movie. This is supposed to be an argument (not evidence) supporting the notion of time-reversed causality.

Similarly, time reversed movies showing billiard ball interactions cannot be distinguished from the correct movie. In the latter case, the movie cannot include the action of the cue stick, which will provide a significant clue. Similarly, a theoretical motion picture of quantum phenomena must exclude actions which provide clues indicating the arrow of time.

I wonder about the Pilot Wave explanation of radioactive decay, which results in probabilistic data. I have never seen it applied to this process. Perhaps this is due to its not providing a plausible explanation of this process.

I am not sure how PW Theory does explains away the probabilistic data. It seems to ignore the data while claiming to provide a (time reversed) causal explanation. I wonder how convicing PW theory would be if "time reversal" was mentioned more often in the PW descriptions of quatum processes.

• Those who adhere to explanations which deny that quantum processes are non-causal, do not seem to understand the implications of the probabilistic nature of the data related to various quantum processes. Most people view probability theory as useful in the absence of yet to be discovered “real theories.” They expect the probability theory explanation to be replaced when a “real” theory is discovered. This is a naive view.

Suppose that 100 years from now, some physicist discovers that a radioactive atom decays when the down quark in some proton “frazzles” (A process not known in the early 21st century). Would such a discovery do away with the probabilistic data ? Of course not ! It would merely push the probabilistic process down to the quark level. It would still be a non-causal process governed by probability rather than deterministic laws.
I have some friends who are much younger than I who gave up their belief in causality after taking several semesters of course in probability & statistics. Ocf course, I also have some very bright frends with an excellent knowledge of probability/statistics who adhere to casual explanations of Quantum Theory. However, it should be noted that the latter group seem to have problems dealing with radioactive decay. .

18. ### quantum_waveContemplating the "as yet" unknownValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,612
Dinosaur, that is a great post and a good survey of the area of discussion.

Sometimes I have to explain where I am coming from. I won’t be able to keep up with the discussion of the mathematical work to describe the quantum reality and to reconcile quantum mechanics and general relativity.

Nevertheless, I have a physical picture of something that intrigues me. I name it and talk about it in various threads but it is alternative thinking. The jargon that I use is intentionally simple English where possible to avoid controversy over terms that have specific meanings within particular theories that science professionals and mathematicians work with.

To put it simply it is called energy density. I have never found a professional willing to talk with me about the idea that the universe is infinite, has always existed, and is filled with energy at all points in space, i.e. there are no voids and all points in space have some degree of energy density.

This simple concept (set of ideas that I think qualifies as protoscience) is the basis of the physical picture that intrigues me enough to try to compare it to existing theories, at least to the extent that I can understand them. The idea is that matter is composed of energy in quantum increments, and the energy density of space causes energy quanta to form and combine into mass. There is a force called quantum action that is exerted when energy density becomes quantized.

I have done what I can to compare it to the Theory of General Relativity because I think energy density can explain what causes gravity. If there is an energy density explanation for gravity then curved spacetime becomes a description of how gravity acts, but not how it works.

I have done what I can to compare it to quantum mechanics and particle physics because I think energy density can explain what causes mass and force at a level of order below our best observations of the quantum realm.

With me off thinking in a world of my own about a physical picture that only a few might share and that goes beyond the theoretical limits called the standard model at both the cosmological front and the particle front, I am on a lonely course.

I use the forums to express these ideas and look for evidence and observations that prove me wrong so that I can get over the intrigue and let go of the physical picture that hangs up in my brain, i.e. get on with my old age

. But so far I haven’t found where science knows what causes mass and gravity. This pesky physical picture beguiles me into thinking it makes sense.

I say to the professionals, hurry up and prove what causes mass and gravity, unite GR and QM, and understand and describe the full relationships between particles and forces. Then you can write it up in a press release, put it into words that will become the popular point of view of what the science of mass and gravity really is and I will be satisfied.

Until then I try to be a good member of the community, respect other peoples threads, and defend my ideas by answering all questions posed that relate to what I have posted.

Last edited: Feb 3, 2009
19. ### quantum_waveContemplating the "as yet" unknownValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,612
This is partially how I understand it. Maybe you can help my thinking. I agree that it is not as simple as being an issure of measurement technology. I understand that there is a question, a debate between different views. One view is that there is no precise position and momentum at the quantum level. One is that there is but we cannot observe it. I have been of the impression that it is an issue of whether there is a quantum reality, or there is no quantum reality at a non-classical level.

What is wrong with my thinking up to that point?

20. ### gluonBannedBanned

Messages:
512
Dinosaur is only talking from how the media often portray it, but in reality, the umcertainty principle doesn't say it can't have both a precise position or momentum, because there are actually ways to violate the uncertainty principle. While they remain as paradoxes, they present a problem in the true definition of the uncertainty principle. The uncertainty principle is a non-local phenomenon, and cause and effect break down. The uncertainty principle ultimately states we cannot know everything about the past and about the future.

21. ### Billy TUse Sugar Cane Alcohol car FuelValued Senior Member

Messages:
23,198
I replied in post 47:
“Despite your name, I think you do not know where the uncertainty principle comes from, mathematically. You seem to have the popular, but wrong, POV that it is because measurement disturbs what is being measured.

As it turns out it is in principle permitted to know as precisely as you like both the energy and momentum simultaneously. (Math reason is the their QM operators do commute under the Hamiltonian) It is knowledge of the energy and when that was the energy existed that cannot both be known with unlimited precision. (E & T operators do NOT commute under the Hamiltonian.) Likewise location and momentum's operators do not. So there is a limit on how accurately both momentum and where it was with that momentum set by the uncertainty principle.”

Then in Post 49 you replied (but I have now made part bold):
No the QM theory is NOT based on fact we cannot observe details. QM theory is well accepted, including the uncertain principle which falls out MATHEMATICALLY, (NOT “because” or in any way related to fact that “cannot observe the details of the interaction”) because QM theory has been tested so much with no false predictions and in some cases the QM predictions agree with experimental observations to amazingly high accuracy. I.e. errors less than 1 part in a million million! (1 part in 10^12). I think no other theory even comes close to making such accurately CONFIRMED predictions.

No one informed doubts either the uncertainty principle (part of the QM mathematical structure) or the probabilistic nature of measurements on mixed quantum states.

Many however, including some very good physicists, including Einstein were/are unhappy with QM as a “model of reality” but most, me included, regard it mainly as the most accurate calculation tool known. Some of the “unhappy ones” have POSTULATED WITH NO SUPORTING EVIDENCE, except their wishes and limited human experience that “reality” is other than QM suggests.

Einstein postulated unknown “hidden variables” * to remove the indeterminate nature of QM physics model. Others have postulated, what to me is very improbable – multi- universes trillions and trillions of them spawned every micro second with every QM event occurring in our universe. I tend to accept QM as the best available model of reality – there is no reason to think rules derived by human scale measurements and observation should apply in very different regimes.
-------------------
*After Einstein had died, it was shown that “hidden variables” were possible ONLY IF other things that he would have disliked even more (physic is not local, faster than light information transfer is possible, etc.) are true. Few now believe (or even want to believe ) in “hidden variables”.

Last edited by a moderator: Feb 3, 2009
22. ### VkothiiBannedBanned

Messages:
3,674
Uncertainty is universal, or universally applicable. There are two main pictures, the Heisenberg and Schrodinger ones. They're like E=mc^2

The universe is Sherlockian, we're like detectives on the trail of suspects. Their crime is having created the universe. There's a time generator in this universal trail that we first have to set from zero to "one" of.

We use the razor logic of QM, to decide that, whatever the clues tell us, after logically considering what they might convey and subtracting the impossibles, the remaining conclusion must be true however improbable.

Last edited: Feb 7, 2009
23. ### John ConnellanValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,636
Free will is an illusion caused by an indetermined universe