Does the universe even want to be explained.

[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.

 

[dvd_72]

Well then, even if that is true, let's see who wins ey? Bring it on sentient universe!

On a sirious note, I'm fairly certain that the universe works through well defined rules and laws, even if some(read: ALL THE QUANTUM MECHANICS!) of them do allow for a range of uncertainty we are usually able to figure out the (at least in a purely mathematical sense) the "shape" of these rules as you will. The problem lies in the fact that these events are happening on sutch a small (or huge) scale that it is incredibally difficult for the mind to comprehend.

That wont ever stop us from trying. At least I hope it wont. It's our inquisitive nature, our need to know, that has opened the door to these bizzare and wonderfull rules that challange our understanding of the universe and I think I've forgotten where I was going with this post. Oh well.

 

[DarthFennec]

Well it is true that we continue to find weird-ass shit as we continue to dig deeper. But that's how it's always been, and we continue to sort it out eventually. I don't think there will ever be anything that science can't eventually fully explain.

 

[McMullen]

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.

That "Observer Effect" video is a clip from "What the Bleep do We Know?", which is a movie put out by a new-age religious movement that bases itself on pseudoscience. Learning physics from them is like getting a chemistry lesson from a snake-oil salesman.

OT: I can't rule out the possibility that the universe is sentient, but I don't think it needs to be, so I'm betting it isn't. My suspicion is that the universe, like so many things in it, has fractal complexity. That is, every set of rules that describes any scale of the universe accurately will have some specific set of conditions where it breaks down and must be described by a more complex set of rules which will itself have specific conditions that cause it to break down, and so on into infinite complexity.

 

[similar.squirrel]

I'm one of the sentient bits of universe, and I want to know how I work. So, yes.

That's the smartest post I've read here in the past year. Bravo.

 

[Batou667]

I have concluded that the Universe is sentient

...because it's big, and mysterious, and anything that's a perceived higher power than ourselves ought to be anthropmorphised and paid homage to, right?

Anyway, Mr Universe can object to us understanding Him all He wants. Mr Universe can, coincidentally, go whistle. Prodding and probing the universe is in the human nature - and by gum, we willunderstand it one day, or die trying.

 

[huser]

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.

Very much so, hence why I said "gravity as it's understood by us." Perhaps "explained" might have been the more accurate wording, but the theory would lie in how we seek to describe, quantify and explain the existence of gravity (ie our understanding of it), not the simple fact it exists. And while there ARE two theories, it would seem the Einsteinian model would be the more accurate one, as (among other things) the Newtonian model has no explanation for why light would be affected by gravity.

 

[Mau95]

Theyre actually working on a computer to explain more stuff and predict the future of the human race (global warming, migration, economy and all that). Kinda like that one from Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, Deepthought, which was actually Earth.

 

[Thetwistedendgame]

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?

It doesn't want to hide all it's secrets. Just make sure we never run out of them. And for everyone else who has just jumped to this religious satire about just how dumb I am, I say you're to lazy to read my other posts. for everyone who gave GOOD arguments against my theory(It still is god[PROFANITY]it!), good job. Oh and

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.

That "Observer Effect" video is a clip from "What the Bleep do We Know?", which is a movie put out by a new-age religious movement that bases itself on pseudoscience. Learning physics from them is like getting a chemistry lesson from a snake-oil salesman.

OT: I can't rule out the possibility that the universe is sentient, but I don't think it needs to be, so I'm betting it isn't. My suspicion is that the universe, like so many things in it, has fractal complexity. That is, every set of rules that describes any scale of the universe accurately will have some specific set of conditions where it breaks down and must be described by a more complex set of rules which will itself have specific conditions that cause it to break down, and so on into infinite complexity.

this. I'm not literaly meaning that the universe is sentient, just that it has a knack of making questions out of answers.

 

[Daffy F]

The one and only thing that seems to defy explanation in the universe (at least on the macro scale, not going into all the crazy things going on at the quantum level ^_^) is what caused the big bang. There is currently pretty much no theory or way to explain it that doesn't involve analogies. One cool effect of it, however, is we can look into the depths of space (roughly 13.7 billion light years away) we can witness the early universe! Fascinating!