It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Our universe was created through observation

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 02:29 PM
link   
We have been asking ourselves how the universe was created for a very long time. The most mainstream theory is the "big bang". Who decided that the big bang was the best answer for how the universe was created? Scientists to this day are still arguing over this. However through observations made at the south pole scientists believe they discovered "ripples" left over from the big bang.



The ripples detected by the telescope, Bicep2, were faint spiral patterns from the polarization of microwave radiation left over from the Big Bang. They are relics from when energies were a trillion times greater than the Large Hadron Collider can produce.

These gravitational waves are the long-sought markers for a theory called inflation, the force that put the bang in the Big Bang: an antigravitational swelling that began a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second after the cosmic clock started ticking. Scientists have long incorporated inflation into their standard model of the cosmos, but as with the existence of the Higgs, proving it had long been just a pipe dream.


www.nytimes.com...

Now you might think this is great but it proves nothing as to how the universe was created through observation. Let me move on to my next part which is size. So here is how they said these waves got there.


Imprinted on the cosmos when it was a subatomic quantum speck, they have been blown up a trillion trillion times and spread across the sky for inspection.


So at some point they are saying that our universe was a "subatomic quantum speck". Ok that's good to know so through observation we believe that our universe started out small and has expanded many times and is still expanding. My only problem is, how can you prove we are still not a subatomic quantum speck? Let me add a picture for representation of our sun's size in space looking from each planet in our solar system.



The farther away the "smaller" it gets in comparison to the space around it. At some point it would become a "subatomic quantum speck" (in relation to the space around it). Once our sun reached the size of a subatomic quantum speck next would be our solar system and then our galaxy etc. If we believe our universe has a "size" and is expanding (as we see through observations) then there is something much larger that we are expanding into. So if our universe has a "size" it is now also a "subatomic quantum speck" (if in fact outside our universe its infinite).

See its not the universe that gives us size its the act of observing the universe from our perspective. Great, it still doesn't prove that observations created the universe (I'm getting there).

So if everything in our universe is a subatomic quantum speck in relationship to the space around it. Then only the act of observation creates "something" from "nothing". That is how (In my opinion) the universe was created through the act of observation.

I will leave you with what's called schrodingers' cat where there is a cat in two boxes and... Well i'll let Michio Kaku explain. There are two theories he presents and I feel that both are correct in a way. First our I feel our universe was created through observations. I believe the second theory is correct for outside our universe. I feel we "tuned" into our universe however there are infinite other universes observed as well.





posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 02:37 PM
link   

LightSource
I feel we "tuned" into our universe however there are infinite other universes observed as well.


Any universe I can live in will likely seem like it is tuned to my life form.

The rest is interesting, but I think early on the universe may have observed itself (before life).



edit on 27-3-2014 by Elton because: missing words



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Elton

LightSource
I feel we "tuned" into our universe however there are infinite other universes observed as well.


Any universe I can live in will likely seem like it is tuned to my life form.

The rest is interesting, but I think early on the universe may have observed itself (before life).



edit on 27-3-2014 by Elton because: missing words


That gets into a whole new question of what is "life". Is life something that breathes? Or is life something that is conscious? I feel life is consciousness and that could just be in the form of energy.
edit on 27-3-2014 by LightSource because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 02:55 PM
link   
well the proof that we are no longer a sub atomic quantum spec is that we can see those things and we can also see the rest of the universe (well, what we can see at least) and its actually VASTLY larger. The proof of the inflationary model within general relativity is that you can trace the paths and vectors of objects in the universe backward and everything appears to get closer together I would imagine as you conceptually turn back the clock. Furthermore everything we can see that is far away is redshifting due to a doppler effect (hubble pointed this out I think) and things that shouldnt look that red in the spectrum are red because they are rushing away from us and eachother.

The perspectivist notion of the relative size of the sun due to distance and perspective is a valid point and extremely important, but I dont think its particularly illustrative in proving any theory that proposes that we are still in a very very small quantum portion of space time.



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 03:10 PM
link   

LightSource


I will leave you with what's called schrodingers' cat where there is a cat in two boxes and... Well i'll let Michio Kaku explain. There are two theories he presents and I feel that both are correct in a way. First our I feel our universe was created through observations. I believe the second theory is correct for outside our universe. I feel we "tuned" into our universe however there are infinite other universes observed as well.


Oh dear. Edwin Schroedinger came up with cats in a box to show the absurdity of the assertion that a particle is in two states before being observed. It quite clearly is One state or another. What is amazing is how many physicists miss this point completely !!!!!!!!!



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 03:42 PM
link   

immoralist
well the proof that we are no longer a sub atomic quantum spec is that we can see those things and we can also see the rest of the universe (well, what we can see at least) and its actually VASTLY larger. The proof of the inflationary model within general relativity is that you can trace the paths and vectors of objects in the universe backward and everything appears to get closer together I would imagine as you conceptually turn back the clock. Furthermore everything we can see that is far away is redshifting due to a doppler effect (hubble pointed this out I think) and things that shouldnt look that red in the spectrum are red because they are rushing away from us and eachother.

The perspectivist notion of the relative size of the sun due to distance and perspective is a valid point and extremely important, but I dont think its particularly illustrative in proving any theory that proposes that we are still in a very very small quantum portion of space time.


Vastly larger can only be stated by something that is observable therefore a "size" is attached to it. there is no "size" in something that is infinite. No matter how large or small something is it is only relative to the observer. If our universe is expanding (not sure if expanding would even be the right word in this subject) or just in an infinite space then it would be so small you couldn't even see it unless it is observed.

Lets say I was in infinite space and I started walking. I would never run into anything I would just walk forever. But due to observation I notice a spec of light. As I walk towards this spec of light it gets bigger and bigger. Once I get to this light I realize its a universe. The act of observation caused this universe to be given a "size" and to be created. Or rather maybe when consciousness discovered the law of total probability it then created universes but there is no size in infinite.

Added- However I think nothing can be observed in an infinite space so outside of our universe would appear to be empty. That could also explain how "nothing" could come from "something". Its not that its not there it just that you can't observer it in an infinite space and doesn't become "real" until its observed and can only be observed in a finite space.
edit on 27-3-2014 by LightSource because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-3-2014 by LightSource because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 03:45 PM
link   

LightSource

immoralist
well the proof that we are no longer a sub atomic quantum spec is that we can see those things and we can also see the rest of the universe (well, what we can see at least) and its actually VASTLY larger. The proof of the inflationary model within general relativity is that you can trace the paths and vectors of objects in the universe backward and everything appears to get closer together I would imagine as you conceptually turn back the clock. Furthermore everything we can see that is far away is redshifting due to a doppler effect (hubble pointed this out I think) and things that shouldnt look that red in the spectrum are red because they are rushing away from us and eachother.

The perspectivist notion of the relative size of the sun due to distance and perspective is a valid point and extremely important, but I dont think its particularly illustrative in proving any theory that proposes that we are still in a very very small quantum portion of space time.


Vastly larger can only be stated by something that is observable therefore a "size" is attached to it. there is no "size" in something that is infinite. No matter how large or small something is it is only relative to the observer. If our universe is expanding (not sure if expanding would even be the right word in this subject) or just in an infinite space then it would be so small you couldn't even see it unless it is observed.

Lets say I was in infinite space and I started walking. I would never run into anything I would just walk forever. But due to observation I notice a spec of light. As I walk towards this spec of light it gets bigger and bigger. Once I get to this light I realize its a universe. The act of observation caused this universe to be given a "size" and to be created. Or rather maybe when consciousness discovered the law of total probability it then created universes but there is no size in infinite.


But the universe isnt considered to be infinite, only VAST in size, VAST is almost beyond observationally large but its not infinite. Who is proposing that our universe is infinite? The universe is observable after all...



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 04:04 PM
link   

immoralist

LightSource

immoralist
well the proof that we are no longer a sub atomic quantum spec is that we can see those things and we can also see the rest of the universe (well, what we can see at least) and its actually VASTLY larger. The proof of the inflationary model within general relativity is that you can trace the paths and vectors of objects in the universe backward and everything appears to get closer together I would imagine as you conceptually turn back the clock. Furthermore everything we can see that is far away is redshifting due to a doppler effect (hubble pointed this out I think) and things that shouldnt look that red in the spectrum are red because they are rushing away from us and eachother.

The perspectivist notion of the relative size of the sun due to distance and perspective is a valid point and extremely important, but I dont think its particularly illustrative in proving any theory that proposes that we are still in a very very small quantum portion of space time.


Vastly larger can only be stated by something that is observable therefore a "size" is attached to it. there is no "size" in something that is infinite. No matter how large or small something is it is only relative to the observer. If our universe is expanding (not sure if expanding would even be the right word in this subject) or just in an infinite space then it would be so small you couldn't even see it unless it is observed.

Lets say I was in infinite space and I started walking. I would never run into anything I would just walk forever. But due to observation I notice a spec of light. As I walk towards this spec of light it gets bigger and bigger. Once I get to this light I realize its a universe. The act of observation caused this universe to be given a "size" and to be created. Or rather maybe when consciousness discovered the law of total probability it then created universes but there is no size in infinite.


But the universe isnt considered to be infinite, only VAST in size, VAST is almost beyond observationally large but its not infinite. Who is proposing that our universe is infinite? The universe is observable after all...


I never said the universe is infinite I actually said quite the opposite. I was replying to your post that the universe is "Vastly larger" now then it was before. In a infinite space you would never see "growth" of any object. In infinite space even a universe would be invisible unless it was observed and I feel this can only be done inside the universe because it IS a finite space.
edit on 27-3-2014 by LightSource because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 06:57 PM
link   

LightSource
No matter how large or small something is it is only relative to the observer.
We've chosen to define a meter as something that is independent of our size.

Meter = "the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299,792,458 of a second."

So in modern science how large or small something is can be said to be relative to the length of the path traveled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299,792,458 of a second. I would not call "the length of the path traveled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299,792,458 of a second" an observer.
edit on 27-3-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


No but ' the length of the path travelled by light in a vacuum during a time interval of 1/299,792,458 of a second' is certainly an observation



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 08:33 PM
link   

LightSource

Elton

LightSource
I feel we "tuned" into our universe however there are infinite other universes observed as well.


Any universe I can live in will likely seem like it is tuned to my life form.

The rest is interesting, but I think early on the universe may have observed itself (before life).



edit on 27-3-2014 by Elton because: missing words


That gets into a whole new question of what is "life". Is life something that breathes? Or is life something that is conscious? I feel life is consciousness and that could just be in the form of energy.
edit on 27-3-2014 by LightSource because: (no reason given)


The term "life" is on the verge of becoming an archaic term.

What do we mean with the word "life"? Carbon based biology? A symbiotic system, like a planet, or solar system? A consciousness, which can lack a biology? A being with will, regardless of consciousness or not?

That latter one...that is interesting. Consider a being living in our realm, but not interacting with our realm in any recognizable way? Would that still be "life"?

I think we will need to describe things differently in the long run. Because there are many things that could be called "life", some of which lack conscousness and biology.



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by IambTrochee
 

In the context here, it's the definition of a unit of length. The observation may be of something say half as long so then we say the observed length is half the referenced unit, or 0.5 meters.

To look at it another way we could build robotic observers of various dimensions, from the size of a cell phone to the size of the LHC. No matter the size of the observer, they will all observe 0.5 meters, even though the cell phone sized observer is smaller than 0.5 meters and the LHC sized observer is much larger. The point is that in this system the size in meters is independent of the size of the observer.

edit on 27-3-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Arbitrageur
reply to post by IambTrochee
 

In the context here, it's the definition of a unit of length. The observation may be of something say half as long so then we say the observed length is half the referenced unit, or 0.5 meters.

To look at it another way we could build robotic observers of various dimensions, from the size of a cell phone to the size of the LHC. No matter the size of the observer, they will all observe 0.5 meters, even though the cell phone sized observer is smaller than 0.5 meters and the LHC sized observer is much larger. The point is that in this system the size in meters is independent of the size of the observer.

edit on 27-3-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification


It doesn't matter if its .5 meters or 100 meters its still an observable event. Also you are incorrect size is relevant to the observer. If you are the size of an ant .5 meters is going to look much larger than a human looking at something that is .5 meters. It might be the same matter but its "size" changed due to the observer however the amount of matter stayed the same. For all we know our observable universe could have a diameter of .5 meters if we were able to observe it outside our universe in a finite setting. In an infinite setting there is no "size" so it couldn't be measured.



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 11:06 PM
link   

bigfatfurrytexan

LightSource

Elton

LightSource
I feel we "tuned" into our universe however there are infinite other universes observed as well.


Any universe I can live in will likely seem like it is tuned to my life form.

The rest is interesting, but I think early on the universe may have observed itself (before life).



edit on 27-3-2014 by Elton because: missing words


That gets into a whole new question of what is "life". Is life something that breathes? Or is life something that is conscious? I feel life is consciousness and that could just be in the form of energy.
edit on 27-3-2014 by LightSource because: (no reason given)


The term "life" is on the verge of becoming an archaic term.

What do we mean with the word "life"? Carbon based biology? A symbiotic system, like a planet, or solar system? A consciousness, which can lack a biology? A being with will, regardless of consciousness or not?

That latter one...that is interesting. Consider a being living in our realm, but not interacting with our realm in any recognizable way? Would that still be "life"?

I think we will need to describe things differently in the long run. Because there are many things that could be called "life", some of which lack conscousness and biology.


Yes "life" is a very loose term which we really only know what we can observer at this moment in time. Not to get off subject it is a very interesting subject however.



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 04:18 PM
link   
I like the mixture of theories discussed in this forum, but it just seems we will infinitely go around in circles. But only as we are observing these conversations can it be seemed infinite.

I think you are thinking too much in the relms that theories have created. The idea that something must be observed to allow it to be a size is only true as its a language we as man have created. Take away this language we have created to make fit something we have no idea about and you have nothing to quantify space etc. Basically what i am saying is these words and measurements are created to help us create a model to understand the universe but dont work as all of them have flaws and innacuacies that are labeled as anomolies or whatever.

Just do what religion does and say God created all because it is the same as science in that it uses a man made language and measurements to help us understand reality.

Ive confused myself but that should fit







 
5

log in

join