Are we creating the Universe as we observe it?

[PJay_A]

If aliens haven't yet beat us to it in observing the Universe, are we creating it by observing it?

 

[Mee_n_Mac]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If aliens haven't yet beat us to it in observing the Universe, are we creating it by observing it? <br />Posted by <strong>PJay_A</strong></DIV><br /><br />I wonder how the universe you created looks so much like the one I did ?&nbsp; Unless of course you don't exist .... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-----------------------------------------------------</p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,</font></p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask it to, please for the love of all that's Holy, <strong>STOP</strong> !</font></p> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If aliens haven't yet beat us to it in observing the Universe, are we creating it by observing it? <br />Posted by PJay_A</DIV><br /><br />No.&nbsp; And this belong in the Unexplained and not in the Physics forum. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[emperor_of_localgroup]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If aliens haven't yet beat us to it in observing the Universe, are we creating it by observing it? <br />Posted by PJay_A</DIV></p><p><font size="2">As absurd as it sounds, it could be true.&nbsp; I have this suspicion for a while now because of discoveries and their timings.</font></p><p><font size="2">But if it is true, it would be so twisted and convoluted our minds would never figure it out.</font></p><p><font size="2">Yes, it belongs to UNEXPLAINED.</font></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Earth is Boring</strong></font> </div>

 

[vogon13]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If aliens haven't yet beat us to it in observing the Universe, are we creating it by observing it? <br /> Posted by PJay_A</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Seems like your idea would be subject to evisceration via reductio ad absurdum. </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>How did first observer come into being ??&nbsp; </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>He did not observer himself into existence.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[PJay_A]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;Seems like your idea would be subject to evisceration via reductio ad absurdum. &nbsp;How did first observer come into being ??&nbsp; &nbsp;He did not observer himself into existence.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <br />Posted by vogon13</DIV><br /><br />Seriously, I was asking a serious scientific question based on quantum laws concerning observation. Correct me if I'm wrong but quantum mechanics theorize that everything exists at all realms of possibility until its first observed. Isn't this the whole big deal over the Shroedinger (sp?) Cat thought experiment?</p><p>So, taking that a bit further on the scale of the Universe... Forget the fact that these observations are being made billions of light years later... Which begs an even odder question:</p><p>Do observations on photons that took billions of light years to travel here also affect its origin, being that its origin is a question of when it was originated. In theory, what I'm getting at is that being first observer of a&nbsp;photon that's traveled billions of years will (according to quantum mechanics) cause it to take on properties.</p><p>What: Photons created in the early Universe that's traveled billions of light years to be detected today on Earth.</p><p>Cause: First intelligent observation of said photons.</p><p>Effect: Observation reverberates billions of years back through time and forces said photons to play the dice of possibilities and create a data set of properties that will permanently link to it.</p>

 

[SpeedFreek]

<p>I think you are taking the concept of "observation" too far.</p><p>When a photon hits <em>anything</em>, the wave-function collapses. It matters not if the photon falls into the eye of a human being or a cow, or if it falls onto a wet rock. It matters not if it hits a piece of dust and is absorbed and then emitted. As soon as a photon is absorbed, it is somewhere in particular rather than potentially somewhere else.</p><p><em>(don't ask <strong>me</strong> about mirrors!)&nbsp;</em></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[Doc_Grey]

<p>This all sounds like the old <em>If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?</em> koan type question writ large. </p><p>&nbsp;</p>

 

[Doc_Grey]

I'm sure Heisenburg would have a thing or two to contribute to the discussion.

 

[MeteorWayne]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'm sure Heisenburg would have a thing or two to contribute to the discussion. <br />Posted by Doc_Grey</DIV><br /><br />Or he already did <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[vogon13]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Or he already did <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>{the more precisely one pins down when Heisenberg said it, the less precisely you know what he said . . . }</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If aliens haven't yet beat us to it in observing the Universe, are we creating it by observing it? <br /> Posted by PJay_A</DIV></p><p>Pick up a book - "Cosmic Jackpot" by Paul Davies.&nbsp; You might find it interesting.&nbsp; Also, do some googling on the concept of "Boltzmann Brains." </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[Saiph]

<p>Boltzmann brains? </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"This is my Timey Wimey Detector.  Goes "bing" when there's stuff.  It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually.  I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Boltzmann brains? Posted by Saiph</DIV></p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain</p><p>http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19526171.100-spooks-in-space.html ( A really good article if you have a subscription.)</p><p>Basically, in a sufficiently large Universe, there is a possibility of an "observer" effect randomly popping out of nothingness due to the creation of something which is analogous to a brain - ie: an entity popping out of nothingness due to random fluctuations that just happen to yield structures capable of reason/consciousness.</p><p>So, if this could happen, what is the result?&nbsp; What happens if over millions of years, there happen to be more Boltzmann Brains than human observers?&nbsp; Who owns the Universe then from an Observer's point of view? </p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[kelvinzero]

<p>Just a note: the Boltzmann brain idea was actually a counterargument to Boltzmann's idea, and it it Boltzmanns idea that is most relevant here.</p><p>As far as I can tell Boltzmann was suggesting that we dont need a reason for the big bang or any similar event. So long as&nbsp;space is infinite, random fluctuations of arbitrary scales have to happen. Even if a single virtual particle only emerges every few eons, in an infinite space and time larger structures will emerge now and again.</p><p>&nbsp;If we can only be around to make observations in one of these&nbsp;universes then the fact we witness a universe does not tell us anything about the probability of that universe. So if our explanation does not need any particular probability then 'total fluke' is a perfectly acceptable explanation.</p><p>In this case you might as well say that the universe needs no reason to exist except to be observed.</p><p>(The Boltzmann brain counterargument is that if this were the only reason for a universe to exist, then the universe would be the smallest necessary, in fact just a brain capable of "I think therefore I.. oh darn" before expiring.)</p>

 

[SFRocker]

<p>What is the universe?</p><p>The universe is a word we made up to describe something we observed.</p><p>&nbsp;So in effect we created the universe when we named it and the universe will only exist so long as there is someone calling it that.</p><p>So in the context of language the answer is yes.</p><p>In the context of philosophy it could be argued either way.</p><p>In the context of science: One can test the hypothesis by not observing the universe and then having another observer confirm that it still exists.</p><p>&nbsp;Of course a philosopher could argue that the other observer saw a different universe.</p><p>At the end of the day while the question does inspire confusion (a good thing) the answer is irrelevant because knowing the answer wouldn't affect the human experience unless you chose to behave differently having found that answer. I say if the question inspires you then revel in not knowing the answer, if it stifles you then ask a different question.</p><p>&nbsp;</p>