Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Hawking's final multiverse theory published


UM-Bot

Recommended Posts

In other words if a Quantum event is actually affected by one's conscious awareness of it only, without interfering with it by being in its direct path then a whole new science needs to be recognised.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
1 minute ago, danydandan said:

You don't know what's happening when your not observering. This is the crux of our issue in quantum mechanics.

For observation to affect a Quantum system, it seems to me that the observation must be "active" instead of "passive"

Active meaning placement in the path.

Passive meaning observing from a distant, acute non-path angle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I place myself between a gunman and his victim my placement will interfere with the path of the bullet

If however I place myself outside the path of the bullets travel my observation will in no way affect the path of the bullet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Measurement often places instrumentation in the direct path of probabilities.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason for the phenom as a whole is due to entanglement, and really has nothing at all to do with passive observation... only active.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the quantum world hardly gets any more weird than the concept of entanglement, which has been well proven. But who's mechanism is currently unknown.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm wondering if entanglement infers there exists a deeper level of reality? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, pallidin said:

For observation to affect a Quantum system, it seems to me that the observation must be "active" instead of "passive"

Active meaning placement in the path.

Passive meaning observing from a distant, acute non-path angle.

Yeah I assumed that was obvious, as we can't passively observe anything on a quantum scale. I should clarify that the observer is not us, or you or I but the instrument of measure. If that makes sense.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0312115

This paper tried to explain it in such away that consciousness causes the wave function to collapse it's utterly ridiculous. But it's interesting non the less.

Edited by danydandan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, StarMountainKid said:

I'm wondering if entanglement infers there exists a deeper level of reality? 

I think it just means we have a lot more to discover. Deeper level of reality I don't know, maybe. I read Stephen Hawkings and Thomas Hertogs paper today, it makes a good case against a multiverse reality. I must admit some of it is well out of my field, and I'll probably need to read it more that a few times to grasp it fully. But basically they use the holography concept that describes our three dimensional universe as a two dimensional one, the math appears to check out according to a mathematician friend of mine but it seems they will need to get direct evidence from the big bang to prove it. Something like gravitational waves. Anyways if proven correct it makes reality more uniform.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, pallidin said:

And the quantum world hardly gets any more weird than the concept of entanglement, which has been well proven. But who's mechanism is currently unknown.

Yeah my pet hate is people claiming faster than light communication is possible through entanglement, then use it as an example of how their alien God friends talk to them through the cosmic consciousness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, StarMountainKid said:

I'm wondering if entanglement infers there exists a deeper level of reality? 

Well, good question.

Nothing in the "Standard Model" of physics accounts for entanglement, at least so far.

It is an observable, testable, reproducible phenom without any classical explanation.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, danydandan said:

Yeah my pet hate is people claiming faster than light communication is possible through entanglement, then use it as an example of how their alien God friends talk to them through the cosmic consciousness.

That an FTL event occurs during entanglement is not in question... entanglement demands an instantaneous cross-event regardless of distance. 

This is proven.

How to deal with it, especially regarding information interchange remains particularly elusive.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
10 minutes ago, pallidin said:

That an FTL event occurs during entanglement is not in question... entanglement demands an instantaneous cross-event regardless of distance. 

This is proven.

How to deal with it, especially regarding information interchange remains particularly elusive.

 

Agreed, but the exchange of information is not possible.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, danydandan said:

Agreed, but the exchange of information is not possible.

Yes. Due to how entanglement works, purposeful information interchange can not occur.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, pallidin said:

Yes. Due to how entanglement works, purposeful information interchange can not occur.

 

That's the point why faster than light communication is not possible.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, danydandan said:

That's the point why faster than light communication is not possible.

I can't speak for potentially advanced physics, but I get your point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must rest now... love all...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To make matters even more interesting, it has been suggested (not proven) that if our universe was born from a "singularity", that everything is powerfully "entangled" on some unknown, fundamental level.

Edited by pallidin
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 5/2/2018 at 10:27 AM, StarMountainKid said:

I would not agree with your statement that quantum mechanics requires conscious observation. Quantum scale events are occurring all the time everywhere in the universe without our conscious observation. 

Are universes that are not conducive to life real? I think they are, there's just nobody there. 

I believe the double-slit (and its variations) show that quantum events do not collapse down to a certainty unless observed by a conscious observer.  And that all quantum probabilities prior to observation all exist at the same time until observed as shown through the delayed double-slit experiment and represented in Schrodinger's cat thought experiment.  Quantum scale events do not collapse down to a reality unless they are observed.  I'm just suggesting that other universes, if they exist, are the result of the collapsing of these quantum probabilities down to a reality, which require conscious observation by something capable of conscious thought.  It doesn't really matter anyhow, it's all speculative at best.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/6/2018 at 12:14 AM, pallidin said:

To make matters even more interesting, it has been suggested (not proven) that if our universe was born from a "singularity", that everything is powerfully "entangled" on some unknown, fundamental level.

I've often thought that every atom, every particle, every everything is quantumly entangled with extra-dimensional elements.  Thus, our ordered brains, memories and ideas could give structure to an unseen extra-dimensional entity...perhaps a concept of a soul?  Something to think about I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/2/2018 at 1:14 PM, StarMountainKid said:

I think that our universe as the only one that has ever existed is less likely than our universe as just one of many.  

But, by that logic, wouldn't it be likely that the boundaries eventually collapse? A bit rhetorical. I'm actually not sure. What happens then? Or, is everything completely disconnected? There are large gaps in the understanding of these things we don't know. It's purely hypothetical.

Edited by Skulduggery
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Skulduggery said:

But, by that logic, wouldn't it be likely that the boundaries eventually collapse? A bit rhetorical. I'm actually not sure. What happens then? Or, is everything completely disconnected? There are large gaps in the understanding of these things we don't know. It's purely hypothetical.

I don't know, of course, but I would think universes would be disconnected from each other, as space and time only exist 'within' universes, so to speak. there is no 'outside' of a universe, unless there would be some sort of space-time bridge between universes. I don't see how that could come to exist.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is exactly why that needs to be explored. Nobody even knows how these things interact, if at all. Or, what's beyond the pale. It is completely based on hypothetical models, and each one offers hints, but nothing's known. What seems more likely doesn't mean too much. Universes, man, they're scary. I've always had a fear that the universe would just pop one day like a giant bubble.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.