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.

 

Did the Big bang need an observer? Is the universe held together by time travel?

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 01:47 PM
link   
did there have to be a witness to the big bang, because scientists say nothing definate ever happens outside of our observation and that without an observer only random possibilities exist. they say that nothing exists outside of observation and that to observe is to create.

if it were true that we needed an observer at the big bang;
does that mean its possible that the universe is held together by time travel?
as in the future past and present all exist simultaneously; and that if time travel were ever to be discovered in the future then they would have already used it to go back into the past.

also could advanced technology have produced the big bang after being sent back in time to before the creation?
like a team of scientists from the future go back in time with an advanced hadron collidor type technology; since i read that the hadron collidor produces a mini big bang.

is it possible?


edit on 23-7-2013 by Belcastro because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 01:49 PM
link   
They say the word Amen means true witness to the creation.



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 01:50 PM
link   
Where would they observe it from?

Seriously, where would they observe it from?

Where you are going wrong is believing that nonsense that nothing could exist unless there was a human to observe it.
edit on 23-7-2013 by IvanAstikov because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by IvanAstikov
 


A temporal bubble, or a dimensional pocket. Who knows?



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Belcastro
 


Oh where to start.

This whole observer thing. That's a logical point. At the QUANTUM level, nothing is definite. Particles at that level act as a probability wave until they are detected, then they act like a particle. It's completely strange and hard to grasp.

But when they talk of being observed, they don't mean by human eyes, they mean by any attempt to observe or detect what's happening, you influence the outcome. A detecting grid in the double slit experiment, for example, place a detector in there, don't "watch" with humans, and the particles still act differently than they would if that detector isn't there.

A single stray electron, in this case, is the "observer"

No, the big bang didn't need one, but we can't say it didn't have one, we don't really know how to express what was there before the big bang.



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 01:58 PM
link   
There would be no future observers to travel backs in time to observe if there was no one observing the big bang I ntheir universe, so on and so on...

Wondering where you got the info that an event can not happen without observation. Does that mean that every single event in the universe is currently being observed?



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
Where would they observe it from?

Seriously, where would they observe it from?

Where you are going wrong is believing that nonsense that nothing could exist unless there was a human to observe it.
edit on 23-7-2013 by IvanAstikov because: (no reason given)


Space and time may have existed before the big bang, just because it created matter does not neccesarily mean that space-time wasnt there before it.

i know they say that the big bang created space and time but how would they possibly know that to be true?
matter seems to expand out through space as if it were already there.



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
Where you are going wrong is believing that nonsense that nothing could exist unless there was a human to observe it.


Why is it nonsense? Is it because it sounds unbelievable in your mind, or perhaps you can't understand the concept?

Are you familiar with quantum entanglement? It seems to prove time after time what the OP is asking with regards to an observer.



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by PhotonEffect
 


No human has ever seen these quantum effects, they are just the interpretations of some device. If nothing could exist without there being humans around as observers, what was happening when our ancestors were still swinging in the trees?




edit on 23-7-2013 by IvanAstikov because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Belcastro
 


i can conform for you that there is an observer. this is exactly what the mayan creation myths talk about (fyi)

do not think about time as linear. think about time as either something that exists or does not exist. the idea or concept of it. time only exists with the ego. when we have transcended the idea of time we have transcended the ego. when we have transcended the ego we have transcended the idea of time. this is why there is so much talk in the new age circles about the "now". it replaces what is linear time. past and future.

if we can view creation as a cycle there is an ebb and flow to it. this ebb and flow is the actual creation of and dismantling of worlds. this ebb and flow occurs as we fall into the ego's illusion and then come back to reclaim our true nature. if we view "worlds" not so much as the physical part of life as we know it but the framework (matrix) upon which that world exists we can consider that those that the mayans refer to in their creation myths are the observers of this. i would say even more than observers they are the facilitators. they facilitate the dismantling of and creation of the framework upon which a world exists. right now we are in the dark cycle. the ego cycle. the cycle where the idea of time exists. we are as we speak moving out of this cycle into the light. where the idea of time(ego) is no longer going to be supported.

we do not do this by going back in time but rather dismantling the framework upon which the idea of time (the ego) exists. dismantling one framework/ replacing it with the other. once this is completed we will see a big bang i guess we can call it. it is going to be very very obvious. and again yes there is an observer to this whole process.



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Belcastro
 


Since there was no big bang it is irrelevant, what do I mean?

They have found the expansion of the universe is SPEEDING up ,explosions dont speed up the more time goes by they slow down.(inverse square law)
But now they want to rewrite the gravity laws because they cant conceive there is energy being added to the universe's expansion.science does not have all the answers.
This just proves that matter is being generated and is not solid AND NOT REAL.We are in a huge quantum computer .





edit on 23-7-2013 by supergravity because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by supergravity
reply to post by Belcastro
 


Since there was no big bang it is irrelevant, what do I mean?

They have found the expansion of the universe is SPEEDING up ,explosions dont speed up the more time goes by they slow down.(inverse square law)


Perhaps it is still exploding.

As for the observer, the lack of observation is not proof on non-existence. The whole if a tree falls, just because no one is there to watch it does not mean it never happened. Just means no one was there to say it did.



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
reply to post by PhotonEffect
 


No human has ever seen these quantum effects, they are just the interpretations of some device. If nothing could exist without there being humans around as observers, what was happening when our ancestors were still swinging in the trees?


Well our ancestors were still observing the environment and interpreting the information based on what their senses and level of consciousness were telling them. An observer doesn't necessarily have to imply just a human one.

And these quantum effects have in fact been experimented and observed many times. You've probably heard of the observer effect (or quantum zeno effect) on the double slit experiment. The 'bizarreness' of the results is quite well known.



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Azdraik
 



Originally posted by Azdraik
reply to post by Belcastro
 


As for the observer, the lack of observation is not proof on non-existence. The whole if a tree falls, just because no one is there to watch it does not mean it never happened. Just means no one was there to say it did.


Lack of observation would imply a probability wave where several possible states exist before observation collapses that wave into a specific state. Simple observation brings about real quantum attributes. We therefore can and do, create the world around us. There is quantum fact after quantum fact that proves this strange phenomenon.

As for the whole tree thing- more accurately the question goes: If a tree falls and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?

And the answer would be an emphatic, NO.



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Azdraik

Originally posted by supergravity
reply to post by Belcastro
 


Since there was no big bang it is irrelevant, what do I mean?

They have found the expansion of the universe is SPEEDING up ,explosions dont speed up the more time goes by they slow down.(inverse square law)


Perhaps it is still exploding.

As for the observer, the lack of observation is not proof on non-existence. The whole if a tree falls, just because no one is there to watch it does not mean it never happened. Just means no one was there to say it did.


yeah but some kind of councious observer saw it happen;
some kind of life form in the forest.

doesnt have to be human.



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Belcastro


This universe has always existed and will always exist.
The "Big" Bang was a minor hiccup in the greater scheme of things.



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 09:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Belcastro
 


Scientists say nothing definate ever happens outside of our observation and that without an observer only random possibilities exist.

Scientists don't say that. Yes, I've heard of quantum mechanics.

Most physicists nowadays would probably agree that all 'past, present and future' states of the universe exist at various points in spacetime. That doesn't make time travel possible for humans, unfortunately, except for travel forward in time at the usual rate of one second per second.



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Belcastro
 


Interesting.. reminds me of Isaac Asimov's "The Last Question" along with Frank Tipler's Omega Point.

I think the arrow of time is bi-directional in relation to a first/last cause that is fully in-formed, the implication of which is that the universe may have been consciously created and intelligently designed from the future, the only problem with this hypothesis being the paradox involved in so far as that future of infinite information and complexity from which the big bang arose could not exist without it's corresponding past.

This also raises the idea of an "eternal recurrence" where we've all been here done that got the t-shirt an infinite number of times, including the present moment which is already now echoing through eternity.

I think that something like this is true, but, I add the word evolutionary to eternal recurrence, meaning that it just keeps on getting better and better with each new creation which causes me to wonder what the next universe will be like.. perhaps something that "we" will have absolute awareness of by the time this one finishes up in a fully informed state whereby all the data is sufficient by which to know in advance, from the future, what shall be...



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by Belcastro
 


Scientists say nothing definate ever happens outside of our observation and that without an observer only random possibilities exist.

Scientists don't say that. Yes, I've heard of quantum mechanics.

Most physicists nowadays would probably agree that all 'past, present and future' states of the universe exist at various points in spacetime. That doesn't make time travel possible for humans, unfortunately, except for travel forward in time at the usual rate of one second per second.


What is the act of "traveling" forward in time at "one second per second" exactly?

What is that relative to?



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 10:07 PM
link   
reply to post by WASTYT
 

I'm sure you can work it out for yourself – it's easy enough.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join