Does cosmology answer why the universe exist?

[Write4U]

You have yet to show that those patterns are independent of human perception of them, which is vital for your thesis.

So, are you proposing that reality does not exist without observation. Again, all you keep doing is anthropomorphizing.

I try to present an objective perspective, but alas, you refuse to accept a simplified narrative of natural phenomena.

 

[Write4U]

They have to do with time, for starters, which is a physical concept.

I see time as a measurement of duration, which is a mathematical concept.

 

[Write4U]

Can time be a physical dimension?

Physicists continue work to abolish time as fourth dimension of space

“The definition of time as a numerical order of change in space is replacing the 106-year-old concept of time as a physical dimension in which change runs,” Sorli said. ... ' Our research confirms Gödel's vision: time is not a physical dimension of space through which one could travel into the past or future.”Apr 14, 2012

https://phys.org/news/2012-04-physicists-abolish-fourth-dimension-space.html

 

[Write4U]

From another forum:

It’s not the eye at all. The graphics where there is an eye and then waves and particles and slits and a wall or whatever, are misleading. The “eye” is some sort of particle or wave detector or something. It’s a measurement device. The human eye only comes in at the point of reading the output of that device.

Strange isn’t it?
I understand the scientific term “observer”, but that does not alter the fact that if the event is somehow affected by the "observation" (measurement), the observer must be projecting something that has an influence on the event.

But then we run into a time paradox. When the observer detects an event, the event has already transpired and is in the past. It can no longer be influenced in any way.

So can observing an event influence the event before the event is observed?.....

 

[James R]

Yes I refuse to accept your narrow interpretation of the term "pattern"

You reject the mainstream view that most professional physicists share.

I have presented indisputable evidence that rocks, and specifically crystals are formed by the patterns which are the mathematical organizing function of different species of rocks (crystals).

No. You haven't presented a single shred of evidence that anything material can be formed by a pattern. Nor have you yet attempted to give a mechanism as to how such a thing could even be possible. How could it be?

So, are you proposing that reality does not exist without observation.

No. I'm proposing that human concepts don't exist without human beings.

Again, all you keep doing is anthropomorphizing.

That word probably doesn't mean what you think it means. Check your dictionary, perhaps.

Physicists continue work to abolish time as fourth dimension of space

https://phys.org/news/2012-04-physicists-abolish-fourth-dimension-space.html

Has there been any progress in abolishing time as a fourth dimension since 2012?

 

[Write4U]

You reject the mainstream view that most professional physicists share.

Yes, I see "forms" of matter as patterns as dense forms of various molecular organizations.

No. You haven't presented a single shred of evidence that anything material can be formed by a pattern. Nor have you yet attempted to give a mechanism as to how such a thing could even be possible. How could it be?

Oh, you can observe the molecular structure of a material something, what has no pattern to it.

What then emerges from chaos?

Chaos theory


A plot of the Lorenz attractor for values r = 28, σ = 10, b = 8/3

Chaos theory is an interdisciplinary theory and branch of mathematics focusing on the study of chaos: dynamical systems whose apparently random states of disorder and irregularities are actually governed by underlying patterns and deterministic laws that are highly sensitive to initial conditions.[1][2] Chaos theory states that within the apparent randomness of chaotic complex systems, there are underlying patterns, interconnectedness, constant feedback loops, repetition, self-similarity, fractals, and self-organization.[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory


Similarities and Trends in the Periodic Table

There are certain trends and patterns in the way elements react and behave. For example the format of the periodic table is designed so properties can be easily compared. The atomic number of the elements on the periodic table are organized chronologically, starting with Hydrogen with the the atomic number of 1, going from left to right. The atomic number is the number of protons in the nucleus of an atom, therefore it is the same to the charge number of the element. The main properties that can be compared is the melting point, ionization energy, atomic radius, chemical reactivity, ion charge and conductivity.

https://theperiodictableproject.weebly.com/patterns.html

No. I'm proposing that human concepts don't exist without human beings.

Humans use very few concepts. We observe natural phenomena and symbolize them. Noone conceptualized the existence of the Universe. That's religion.

Anthropomorphism

That word probably doesn't mean what you think it means. Check your dictionary, perhaps.

I think I do.

Anthropomorphism is the attribution of human traits, emotions, or intentions to non-human entities. It is considered to be an innate tendency of human psychology.

Wikipedia

Has there been any progress in abolishing time as a fourth dimension since 2012?

No need.
It makes absolutely no difference what attributes we assign to time. It is a purely human Anthropomorphism.
From the "beginning to the end", it is merely a symbolized measurement of "duration" of past events and is not causal in and of itself. You cannot measure time with time.

I noticed you did not answer my question:

When the observer detects an event, the event has already transpired and is in the past. It can no longer be influenced in any way.

So can observing an event influence the event before the event is observed?.....

 

[James R]

I noticed you did not answer my question:

I thought that was general question you were putting out there. I didn't realise you expected me, specifically, to answer it. You should have said.

I understand the scientific term “observer”, but that does not alter the fact that if the event is somehow affected by the "observation" (measurement), the observer must be projecting something that has an influence on the event.

You're discussing what is often called the "measurement problem" of quantum physics. There are quite a few different ideas about how it might be resolved, but no consensus.

My own suspicion is that the observer isn't "projecting" anything in order to cause the "collapse of the wavefunction". It is not clear to me that consciousness is required to cause a quantum measurement, at all. It could well be that the "wavefunction" itself is, in fact, just telling us what the universe will allow us to know about a quantum system at any given time. When our knowledge changes, so does the wavefunction. As far as I'm aware, however, it remains an unsolved problem as to how the universe "decides" how much we can know.

But then we run into a time paradox. When the observer detects an event, the event has already transpired and is in the past. It can no longer be influenced in any way.

Observation isn't associated with wavefunction collapse "in the past"; it is associated with collapse that is happening "now".

Often, of course, the physical observation of a distant event is a separate event than the distant event itself. For example, light might need to propagate from the location of the distant event to our eyes before we become aware of it. But that's not a problem. Human observation isn't necessarily required to collapse the wavefunction at the distant event.

So can observing an event influence the event before the event is observed?.....

The way we set up to make an observation can certainly influence what we observe, but it doesn't take quantum physics to understand that.

 

[Write4U]

Human observation isn't necessarily required to collapse the wavefunction at the distant event.

Thanks, I agree with most of that. But AFAIK, human observation or any separated observation cannot be synchronized with a wavefunction collapse at the point of the event.
Is that not contained in Heisenberg's "Uncertainty Principle"

Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle states that there is inherent uncertainty in the act of measuring a variable of a particle. Commonly applied to the position and momentum of a particle, the principle states that the more precisely the position is known the more uncertain the momentum is and vice versa. Apr 23, 2021

https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshe..._Mechanics/Heisenberg's_Uncertainty_Principle

 

[Sarkus]

Thanks, I agree with most of that. But AFAIK, human observation or any separated observation cannot be synchronized with a wavefunction collapse at the point of the event.
Is that not contained in Heisenberg's "Uncertainty Principle"

The wavefunction collapses at the very moment of measurement / observation. It is the manifestation of the observation. So I'm not sure what you mean by "cannot be synchronised" when I think they are two sides of the same coin at the quantum level.

Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is about how much you can know about the entire state of what you observe. The more precisely you know property X, the less precisely you can know property Y, etc.
I'm not sure it has anything to do with synchronisation. But maybe I'm misunderstanding what you said.

 

[geordief]

The wavefunction collapses at the very moment of measurement / observation. It is the manifestation of the observation. So I'm not sure what you mean by "cannot be synchronised" when I think they are two sides of the same coin at the quantum level.

Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is about how much you can know about the entire state of what you observe. The more precisely you know property X, the less precisely you can know property Y, etc.
I'm not sure it has anything to do with synchronisation. But maybe I'm misunderstanding what you said.

Is it possible to envisage any scenario where acquired knowledge of anything does not influence the ongoing system?

If I learn that Van Morrison is alive (where I previously thought he was dead) there has to be a physical rearrangement of my sensory apparatus leading to permanent if practicably undetectable changes in the surrounding physical environment.

If we could observe anything without physical consequences would we not be in Maxwell 's Demon territory where free lunches grew on lemonade trees?

But maybe I am not addressing the question properly....

 

[Sarkus]

Is it possible to envisage any scenario where acquired knowledge of anything does not influence the ongoing system?

Yes. I can watch a live football game on TV without impacting the system of the game itself? I know I might like to think that my shouting encouragement at the screen affects how well they play, but my gaining knowledge is sufficiently removed not to have any impact on the observed system.
What I observe is photons thrown off by the system, and as long as those photons never again impact the system I am observing... scenario envisaged.

However, if the observer is considered to be a part of the system as well, rather than as separate, then no.

 

[Write4U]

The wavefunction collapses at the very moment of measurement / observation. It is the manifestation of the observation. So I'm not sure what you mean by "cannot be synchronised" when I think they are two sides of the same coin at the quantum level.

I'm out on a limb here, please forgive any fundamental errors.

As I understand observation (by any means) of something happening, in reality the event I am observing has already happened and the observation is only at the point of observation, not at the point of the causal event.

When I observe a photon emitted by the sun, that photon is 8 minutes old and was emitted 8 minutes ago from the sun. Does my observation of that photon have any effect on the moment it was emitted from the sun 8 minutes ago?

Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is about how much you can know about the entire state of what you observe. The more precisely you know property X, the less precisely you can know property Y, etc.
I'm not sure it has anything to do with synchronisation. But maybe I'm misunderstanding what you said.

I see this as a natural result of the above example. It is more like a reverse equation, where the more you know about one side of the equation , the less you know about the other side. So the question is how does one side affect the other side at all?

However, if the observer is considered to be a part of the system as well, rather than as separate, then no.

Can one avoid being part of the system if you are observing the system, and not influence the system? That sounds kinda paradoxical to me.....

Hence my question: So can observing an event influence the event before the event is observed?.....

 

[Write4U]

What I observe is photons thrown off by the system, and as long as those photons never again impact the system I am observing... scenario envisaged.

But is that not what observation does? The observed photons are now in a collapsed state at the point of observation and can no longer affect the system? The causal event itself is already in the past.

Taking the double slit experiment. How can the observation of a few photons at a distance affect the wave interference pattern of the photons behind the double slit?

 

[Write4U]

When our knowledge changes, so does the wavefunction.

That doesn't sound right to me. Should it not be "When the wavefunction changes, so does our knowledge?

 

[geordief]

Yes. I can watch a live football game on TV without impacting the system of the game itself? I know I might like to think that my shouting encouragement at the screen affects how well they play, but my gaining knowledge is sufficiently removed not to have any impact on the observed system.
What I observe is photons thrown off by the system, and as long as those photons never again impact the system I am observing... scenario envisaged.

However, if the observer is considered to be a part of the system as well, rather than as separate, then no.

I think I was only referring to parts of the system that could be influenced immediately.

.Say your watching of the match was also connected to a fibre optic cable,then (with an amplifier) yourwatching the match might have the effect of shining a light in one of the players.

Not in real time but as a cascade of reactions.

The "observer " end of the fibre optic cable might react in real time and the ripples of causality would spread out at a speed below the speed of light.

But the observer cannot avoid triggering his end of the fibre optic cable (provided the cable is hardwired into his brain)

(not trying to be overly argumentative...I concede I am wrong nearly all of the time esp when my basic understandings are shaky)

 

[Sarkus]

I'm out on a limb here, please forgive any fundamental errors.

More a case of blind leading the blind, I assure you!

As I understand observation (by any means) of something happening, in reality the event I am observing has already happened and the observation is only at the point of observation, not at the point of the causal event.

Sure, but you were talking about synchronising the observation and the wavefunction collapse. So thanks for the clarification. Yes, any measurement or observation is necessarily after the event that gave rise to wavefunction being collapsed. To collapse a wavefunction, it must already exist to be collapsed, surely?

When I observe a photon emitted by the sun, that photon is 8 minutes old and was emitted 8 minutes ago from the sun. Does my observation of that photon have any effect on the moment it was emitted from the sun 8 minutes ago?

Not sure about that specific example, but in principle, yes, quantum mechanics does seem to allow retrocausation.

I see this as a natural result of the above example. It is more like a reverse equation, where the more you know about one side of the equation , the less you know about the other side. So the question is how does one side affect the other side at all?

I don't think the HUP is related to the issue like that. Are you not confusing it with the Observer Effect?

Can one avoid being part of the system if you are observing the system, and not influence the system? That sounds kinda paradoxical to me.....

In non-quantum systems? Sure you can avoid it. Let's take "observation" to be the photon hitting the eye. If the system being observed throws off these photons such that they would never interact further with the system whether we observe them or not, then our observation has zero bearing on the system being observed.
In quantum systems, however, it is completely different, of course (see the Observer Effect link above)

 

[exchemist]

That doesn't sound right to me. Should it not be "When the wavefunction changes, so does our knowledge?

No.

 

[exchemist]

To elaborate a little, the wave function for a state depends on the reference point of the observer. An observer inside the box knows whether Schrödinger's cat is alive or dead. It is only one outside the box for whom a superposition of states applies.

In this sense, QM is like relativity: the point of view affects the applicable wave function.

 

[Write4U]

To elaborate a little, the wave function for a state depends on the reference point of the observer. An observer inside the box knows whether Schrödinger's cat is alive or dead. It is only one outside the box for whom a superposition of states applies.

In this sense, QM is like relativity: the point of view affects the applicable wave function.

Thanks for clarifying. I understand .
But that relative state is only experienced by the observer, no?
Question is: How does the observer's relatively subjective experience affect the original wave function itself?

This reminds me of the example where a train is travelling at high speed a distance between two observers stationed along the tracks , one in front of the train, one behind the train which is blowing its whistle as it travels between them.

The next day the two guys meet and end up in an argument about that train whistle that sounded like a "B" note to one and a "C#" note to the other.
The question is; who is lying and who is correct?

The answer is that both are telling the truth and both are wrong. Their observations were a result of the Doppler effect. Which presented a subjective relatively different wavelength to each.

The actual objective note emitted by the train whistle was a "C" and only the engineer on the train observed the true "C" note, but nobody asked him......

 

[exchemist]

Thanks for clarifying. I understand .
But that relative state is only experienced by the observer, no?
Question is: How does the observer's relatively subjective experience affect the original wave function itself?

This reminds me of the example where a train is travelling at high speed a distance between two observers stationed along the tracks , one in front of the train, one behind the train which is blowing its whistle as it travels between them.

The next day the two guys meet and end up in an argument about that train whistle that sounded like a "B" note to one and a "C#" note to the other.
The question is; who is lying and who is correct?

The answer is that both are telling the truth and both are wrong. Their observations were a result of the Doppler effect. Which presented a subjective relatively different wavelength to each.

The actual objective note emitted by the train whistle was a "C" and only the engineer on the train observed the true "C" note, but nobody asked him......

No a particular wave function applies when a system in a particular informational viewpoint interacts with another. It does not require a presence of an "observer", any more than in relativity (lengths and time are affected by relative motion, even when no "observer" is present.)