Does the universe even want to be explained.

[SnakeoilSage]

Your theory sounds a lot like the origin of religion.

The universe is not sentient. It is complex, and for now beyond our capacity to understand its secrets. Whether our less secular-minded counterparts want to accept it or not, the universe - or its supposed creator(s) - isn't hiding its secrets behind clever manipulation or magical powers. It does take some of the mysticism out of it, but chances are the galaxy is much more boring than we want/hope it to be.

Then again, maybe we're here to someday expand that universe... to make it more than it is. To create art, to create stories, to forge dreams. To make the unreal real. Maybe the universe isn't God's gift to us, maybe we're God's gift to the universe.

The debate goes on, much as it has since the first human being looked up and wondered what was out there.

 

[teebeeohh]

why does this sound like "god can't be explained, thus i default win any argument"?

 

[Sparrow]

Things are complicated, therefore the universe is sentient and does not want to be explained.

Yeah, I've not got much more beyond this. That's not a theory buddy, that's just wild guessing. Alternatively, if the universe is sentient, I would like the universe to stop hindering our progression into the future because I want a jetpack, dammit!

 

[R0cklobster]

The way I think about it is that it could simply be that humans simply are not smart enough to be able to explain the universe, in the same way that a cat isn't going to be able to understand the inner workings of how an iPhone works.

 

[huser]

Things are complicated, therefore the universe is sentient and does not want to be explained.

This isn't a theory. It's barely a hypothesis, there's almost nothing connecting the premise and the conclusion.

This is exactly what I thought when I saw this, thank you for saying it for me

This made me think of;

Man, I hate that guy and his ilk. It's one thing to be amazed by the efforts of the ancients, but to say humanity couldn't possibly do these things because it would be difficult today just really gets my goat, on a petty level I've even grown to dislike the accent.

I especially despise how they address ancient wonders individually (the pyramids, Stone Henge, the Antikythera device, Easter Island, etc). Thus, in a vaccuum, each one looks so amazing as
to clearly be beyond ancient humans.

Nevermind that collectively the most obvious conclusion is that ancient humans could do a lot.

It would be like individually examining every record breaking feat every athlete has ever had, and say "SEE, clearly they were an alien because NO ONE could possible accomplish this!"

 

[The-Epicly-Named-Man]

The way I think about it is that it could simply be that humans simply are not smart enough to be able to explain the universe, in the same way that a cat isn't going to be able to understand the inner workings of how an iPhone works.

Key difference: cats can't count. We may not be natural mathematicians, but we are able to calculate (and create machines that calculate almost instantly). Whether we can comprehend the ultimate answer is doubtful, but it's certainly possible for us to find it.

 

[rayen020]

blackholes <--- Proof that universe doesn't want to be explained.

Also a quote;

The regress towards smaller and smaller parts. behind atoms we find electrons and behind electrons quarks. Each mystery solved open news doors but also new mysteries.

Yeah we may figure it all out but it'll probably be the Dwemer figure it all out where just as we realize what we've done it causes a cataclysm that wipes out humanity.

Also the particles going faster than light was disproven, turned out to be a computer syncing problem and not adjusting for the rotation of the earth. Also Schrodinger's cat is more of a thought experiment than an actual scientific one, especially when science requires that we observe effects and if you observe the cat the after the radiation it ceases to be both and becomes either alive or dead.

 

[Paladin Anderson]

Well, hold the phone for just one second here. Schrodinger's cat is theoretical science, though it does correlate with some verifiable quantum science. And you're right, we've collected a lot of data which would suggest that we have absolutely no idea what is going on. Things like the Observer Effect or some of the Quantum Entanglement experiments which are going on suggest that the basic particles of our universe actually do change their behavior when subjected to a conscious observer. We have absolutely no idea why that is, though personally speaking I would wager that it is not that the universe is trying to prevent us from knowing its secrets, and that it is actually that observation plays a much more important role in the universe than any of us realized.

I didn't know that the Schrodinger's cat theory and the Observer effect were not the same thing, although I can understand that since they're basically the oposite thing. I was aware of this effect and that actually looking at something can influence it, as I've read that dark matter apparently disappears when observed. But you said that the Universe is trying to prevent us from unraveling it's secrets, but I mean something different. My theory is that the Universe itself is making up laws as it goes, and for every thing we explain, something else will be created to fill up it's space. This all ties back to the Observer Effect, meaning that any observation we explain will leave a spot to be filled in with another observation that we have to explain, until there is nothing left and the universe has no choice but to make us cease to exist.

Yeah, the Observer Effect is associated with the Double Slit Experiment. Schroedinger's cat, on the other hand, is really more of a metaphorical tool. We haven't run an actual experiment which verifies that while it's in the box the cat is in a simultaneous state of being dead and alive.

I would still disagree with that idea, though perhaps its closer to my own. My contention would be that the universe exists as we perceive it because we perceive it. Quantum science then is just barely beginning to understand the actual mechanisms by which the universe forms in response to conscious observation. I would never say that the universe has an active interest in trying to prevent itself from being explained though, but instead that its basic mechanics are just way more complex than previously realized, and so coming from our position of ignorance it might feel that way.

Do you have any theories on why these things change due to conscious observation?

I was watching Through the Wormhole and this one group was doing a study where they present people two curtains on a computer screen, one of which was hiding an image, and people had to try and guess which curtain had the image. Naturally, the accuracy was 50% since it was just random chance that they would pick the correct curtain.

But then they tried different types of images and found that images of sexual nature increased the accuracy to 55%. It's only a 5% difference but still has huge implications. What are your thoughts on this?

 

[Techno Squidgy]

Observer Effect, meaning that any observation we explain will leave a spot to be filled in with another observation that we have to explain, until there is nothing left and the universe has no choice but to make us cease to exist.

oddly there is actually a theory that states that if the universe was ever fully explained it would be instantly destroyed and replaced with something much more weird, but then there is a part of quantum physics which states that the whilst the present does not affect the future it does effect the past, in other words the first time an event is observed it is entirely reasonable that it's at that point the universe decides just how it happens and not before.

Now is that theory actually been stated by someone or is it something that Douglas Adams came up with just for Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy?

 

[Keepeas]

Of course it doesn't want to be explained...
That is why we must!

 

[cgaWolf]

No, I'm afraid you've missed my point.
I'm talking about the simple act of observation.
Depending on how the information is acquired, of course it can alter the results of the experiment.
As far as I know, the physicists didn't do anything that should have altered the results.
They simply received photons being emitted from the electrons (if I'm correct).
This act alone should not change the result of the experiment.

Ah, haven't missed your point, but i may have chosen a bad example to make mine

In reality, a simple act of observation is anything but simple. Any observation requires an interaction on some level, and if that interaction feeds the observation, it doesn't do what it would have done without the observation. Essentially your criticism of my post was that i was interfering into the state of the experiment, not letting something happen, and observing it afterwards?
Let me try with another setup (You can probably google better explanations of what i'm about to give, but i'll try to keep mine short).

Consider light, which depending on how you observe it either behaves as an electromagnetic wave, or as discrete particles. The fun part is that how it behaves is not decided when it is created - ie. light isn't created as a wave or as a photon, it simply is both at the same time.

In the double slit experiment, you shoot a beam of light (1 wave) on a barrier with 2 slits. As it behaves like a wave, it goes through both holes, and there is an observable interference on the other side of that barrier, as the waves now originating from the 2 slits destroy each other in certain locations.

At the same time, we know from the photoelectric effect that light behaves as a particle - the obvious question now is: if it's also a discrete particle, how can it go through both slits at once? Bilocation is opposed to very idea of a discrete particle.
You can add detectors to the slits to try to find out which path gets taken, but a) that would be interfering with the experiment as per your criteria above and b) all that seems to show is that thus detecting which slit the particle goes through messes up the interference as there's no more wave being looked at, so not terribly useful to us

This brings us to the delayed-choice experiment. What if the detector that tells us which slit the particle has passed through gets installed in a way so that the particle passes through one of the 2 slits before being detected? By all logic, this shouldn't mess with the experiment, the "choice" which path gets taken, or interference. So we install a detector A for slit A, a detector B for slit B, and a screen to block both detectors from detecting anything.

While this was originally a thought experiment, it was implemented in 2007, with very unintuitive results: When you raise the screen, and the detectors can determine which slit the particle goes through, you detect just that - either A or B lights up, and you know a particle has passed through slit A or B.
However when you lower the screen (thus making it impossible for you to detect a particles path), the light starts to behave as a wave, passes through both slits at once, an interferes with itself.

The act of observation, made well after the light has cleared the slits, thus *determines* how the light behaved - it doesn't merely *see* what happens, but how you observe it decides how it happened. If you chose to observe the path, light behaves as a particle; if you chose not to observe the path it took, it behaves as a wave.

The same weirdness applies to Schrödingers Cat thought-experiment, as well as quantum mechanics as a whole. A wave function - a superposition of multiple seemingly contradictory states - collapses into one state when observed. We thus go from a multitude of possibilities to one reality, by no other interaction then simply observing.

While seemingly paradox, that only shows that we're trying to explain something with inadequate vocabulary and understanding. As humans, we're used to things around us making sense - which most often we find to be true in Newtonian mechanics - once we leave our "realm of reference" however, we find it hard to understand and explain reality.
This is simply because the language we use to describe it (the actual words, and the mathematics) are based off the world we see & interact - the symbols are thus appropriate to describe what we see and experience in everyday life, but ill suited to explain anything outside that realm. Once we find the right language to deal with this, it should become less unintuitive, but for now, it will have to do.

Let's not forget: we have a very good and easy way to understand gravitation according to newton. The force with which two bodies attract is equal to the product of their masses times a constant, divided by the square of their distance (f = G*m1*m2/r^2). Dirt easy math.
In reality, this equation has little understanding what (or why) gravity is, why there is mass or what mass is to begin with (apparently, it's best described as "resistance to being moved"). Additionally the numbers are in units comfortable to us, because they came out of a system (math) that we invented, and arbitrarily consider to be true, for no other reason than because it is comfortable to handle.
What we got is not some universal truth, but a tool that works well enough to predict behaviour to a fairly good degree. As our tools and our language evolve, so does our understanding of the natural world.

But for now, quantum mechanics just makes me want to shoot myself ^_^

That's not a theory. Gravity as it's understood by us is a theory. It needs to not only be consistent with all current knowledge, it needs to make verifiable predictions that are then...well verified.

Without wanting to sabotage your actual point (which is quite correct): gravitation isn't a theory, it's a fact, more specifically the fact that two bodies attract with a force proportional to their mass.
As to our theories of gravity, there's several, two of them currently in use, depending on what exactly you're looking at. One of them is derived from the general theory of relativity, the other one ofc Newtons law of universal gravitation.

blackholes <--- Proof that universe doesn't want to be explained.

How is that proof? Seems non-sequitur to me, apparently I'm missing some key information, so please elaborate.

Now is that theory actually been stated by someone or is it something that Douglas Adams came up with just for Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy?

Just Douglas Adams

 

[General BrEeZy]

Maybe the Universe just wants to Party, drink heavily and have Sex with other Universes.

 

[rayen020]

blackholes <--- Proof that universe doesn't want to be explained.

How is that proof? Seems non-sequitur to me, apparently I'm missing some key information, so please elaborate.

/sarcasm

 

[Nerdstar]

let me ask you a question then . if the universe(assuming it is alive sentient and wants to hide all its cool secrets and space chicks) didn't want us to know its secrets why would it give us sentient in the first place to question it?

 

[cgaWolf]

/sarcasm

Sorry, missed that in my misguided fervor. My apologies ^_^

 

[Dystopia]

Not sure if OP is serious.

I've been sat here for ten minutes trying to decide how to reply, and I think this is what's stopping me. I can't figure out if the OP is a joke or not.

It's the universe. Of course it isn't sentient, it doesn't want anything. It just exists (subjectively).

 

[Ranorak]

Could you stop calling things you think of a theory.
A theory is based on solid scientific evidence and facts.

You provided none.

 

[R0cklobster]

The way I think about it is that it could simply be that humans simply are not smart enough to be able to explain the universe, in the same way that a cat isn't going to be able to understand the inner workings of how an iPhone works.

Key difference: cats can't count. We may not be natural mathematicians, but we are able to calculate (and create machines that calculate almost instantly). Whether we can comprehend the ultimate answer is doubtful, but it's certainly possible for us to find it.

Well, yes, I do agree with you, but that was just one specific example. I think what I mean could be better illustrated through some concepts in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5se2xEWw6o

That's not to say that I don't want us to be able to explain the universe (because who doesn't?) or that we can't, just that it might be a possibility that we can't.

 

[Zantos]

One of the issues we have is people are obsessed with elegance, the universe must be elegant. No, the universe is a dirty place with dirty iterative functions to describe it. Once we start doing that we'll probably get a more accurate, although less beautiful, theory of how stuff works.

As far as the faster than light neutrinos are concerned, our friendly neighbourhood metrologists spoilt it for me and my friends by explaining how the clocks were slightly out of synch due to the transportation of one of them to Italy.

 

[The-Epicly-Named-Man]

Key difference: cats can't count. We may not be natural mathematicians, but we are able to calculate (and create machines that calculate almost instantly). Whether we can comprehend the ultimate answer is doubtful, but it's certainly possible for us to find it.

Well, yes, I do agree with you, but that was just one specific example. I think what I mean could be better illustrated through some concepts in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5se2xEWw6o

That's not to say that I don't want us to be able to explain the universe (because who doesn't?) or that we can't, just that it might be a possibility that we can't.

I've actually, heard a similar speech from Tyson before, that's where the "We may not be natural mathematicians..." statement sort of came from, when he discussed the possibility of Steven Hawkins being the mental equivalent of an alien toddler. I suppose it is possible that we may not be able to answer everything, even with an infinite amount of time, however I still find it unlikely.