Big Bang theory just does not make sense

[saac]

38 minutes ago, vlaiv said:

In case anyone cares, I have a new favorite interpretation of QM (and I wonder how I did not come across that earlier):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactional_interpretation

 

At any point were you in superposition of favour or was that indeterminate ?

Jim 

[vlaiv]

2 minutes ago, saac said:

At any point were you in superposition of favour or was that indeterminate ?

Jim 

From a brief look, it seems that this interpretation deals nicely with one thought experiment about causality and non locality.

Imagine Alice and Bob having a pair of entangled particles. Alice and Bob are separated in space and they both measure their respective particle at some point. Stationary observer with respect to A and B would say that it happened in quick succession.

Special relativity tells us that order of events is observer dependent. So there is observer which "sees" Alice take the first measurement and Bob has his particle "already collapsed" into some state by measurement done by Alice. Vice verse - there is observer that concludes the opposite. So who performed "the collapse"?

As far as I can tell, transactional interpretation has both forward and backward propagating wave - so it is compatible with above. In such scenario - it does not matter who did it first as both "waves" were sent and their exchange is actual transaction that caused "wave function collapse".

It also is compatible with quantum field theory where things are disturbances in quantum fields - so fields must be element of reality and thus waves in those fields are elements of reality (which transactional interpretation implies).

Only thing that I'm sort of baffled with is that this interpretation does not address where probabilities arise from. I guess it treats them with propensity approach (again, I'm slightly troubled with this - but if that is the way world works, hey, it's the way world works ... ).

 

[Zermelo]

2 hours ago, vlaiv said:

Other would be to reconsider our understanding of probability and what it means

Yes. I agree that, apart from all the other issues in this topic, this point also muddies these waters.

Since the inception of probability theory, there have been two main derivations/interpretations: one based on the outcomes of (preferably large) numbers of similar events, and another based on an understanding of the physical state and processes leading to the different possible outcomes. These are sometimes labelled (i) "frequentist" or "evidential", and (ii) "propensity".  The problems start when you have only a single outcome to analyse.

For example, if you were allowed to pick, blindfolded, a single ball from a jar of 1 "winner" and 9999 "losers", and you were successful, would you think it was an unlikely occurrence?  Another related issue (also discussed previously on these pages) is the fine-tuning problem - we have just one universe to study, so what should we make of the observation that the values of nature's fundamental physical constants appear to be especially favourable to support intelligent life?

Are we justified in postulating multiple, alternative universes in which outcomes might have been otherwise, so as to explain what we observe in our own? If those alternative universes are, by definition, unknowable, then they belong to metaphysics (I accept that some QM interpretations predict measurable effects from "nearby" realities onto our own).
And then there is the sheer number of alternative realities in "many-worlds". It may be very neat, but it blunts Occam's razor as much as it could possibly be blunted.
 

Edited August 25, 2023 by Zermelo
"inventing" > "postulating"

[andrew s]

Building on @Zermelo post above. Classical and Quantum mechanics are the two simplest examples of what are know as General Probabilistic Theories I.e. theories that describe correlations of detector clicks. 

Over simplifying the first, classical, probability theory has the sum of the possible outcome amplitudes adding to 1, while the second, QM, has the sum of the squares of the possible outcome amplitudes summing to one. More complex options follow with accompanying new phenomena.

Who knows maybe the rip it all down and start again replacements to GR and QM require the next level 😈 

Regards Andrew 

 

[andrew s]

On reflection,  if you add the 10^500 odd multiverse to the 10^***** (I have no idea how many branches) of the Many Worlds of QM no wonder we can find a theory of everything that correlates just two of them.

Looking for an atom in a Universe or two.

Regards Andrew 

[ollypenrice]

On 24/08/2023 at 21:23, saac said:

Yes there is, Newtonian at least. The water is a viscous liquid, a Newtonian liquid indeed. As the bottle falls (follows a straight path (geodesic) through the curvature of spacetime) the currents in the water will experience and exert viscous shear forces. Impart a spin on the bottle before you let go and these shear forces will present a delightful vortex in the water. Now how about we replace the water with supercooled liquid Helium! 
Jim 

I knew it!  I had a glass of Hospice de Beaune the other day and saw the waiter half drop the bottle on his way to our table.  I couldn't put my finger on what was wrong with the bouquet but now I realize that it was a nasty dose of viscous shear! (It had separated the berry notes from the truffle.)

Olly

Edited August 27, 2023 by ollypenrice

[saac]

1 hour ago, ollypenrice said:

I knew it!  I had a glass of Hospice de Beaune the other day and saw the waiter half drop the bottle on his way to our table.  I couldn't put my finger on what was wrong with the bouquet but now I realize that it was a nasty dose of viscous shear! (It had separated the berry notes from the truffle.)

Olly

Had you enjoyed one too many and entered the quantum realm Olly?

Jim 

[ollypenrice]

23 hours ago, saac said:

Had you enjoyed one too many and entered the quantum realm Olly?

Jim 

I can't afford one Hospice de Beaune, let alone one too many (whatever that might be.)

lly

[Zermelo]

This evening's University Challenge had a question on interpretations of QM.

[The60mmKid]

This is why I stick to geocentrism.

[ollypenrice]

8 hours ago, The60mmKid said:

This is why I stick to geocentrism.

Understandable, but don't stray too far from home....

😁lly

[Earl]

Lots of discussion about before the big bang theory to try and discover more ideas to turn into a theory which is more satisfying.

[Martthebass]

On 22/08/2023 at 20:43, iantaylor2uk said:

I agree with you, but the point I was trying to make was that scientific theories don't really need to be understood by non-scientists to be correct, although the big bang theory is easier to understand compared to quantum mechanics, for example.

Yes I remember Quantum Mech 101 on my first day at Birmingham Uni......I wanted to go home.  I still can't prove Schrodinger's equation.

[Ouroboros]

Are there any viable alternatives to the Big Bang theory? I am aware of the steady state theory for example. A perfectly reasonable theory, but one not confirmed by current observations of the universe.  But are there any others? 

[Xilman]

Yeah, the Universe was created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster. His Noodly Appendages have ensured that all observations are subtly manipulated to confirm with the current scientific dogma.

How can you tell that I am a Pastafarian?

[vlaiv]

15 minutes ago, Ouroboros said:

Are there any viable alternatives to the Big Bang theory? I am aware of the steady state theory for example. A perfectly reasonable theory, but one not confirmed by current observations of the universe.  But are there any others? 

Ok, so here is something very interesting.

People have an issue with the idea that everything came into existence at one particular time, but alternative is that everything existed infinitely long - it was never created it just existed without beginning, and that is perfectly fine?

 

[Ouroboros]

2 minutes ago, vlaiv said:

Ok, so here is something very interesting.

People have an issue with the idea that everything came into existence at one particular time, but alternative is that everything existed infinitely long - it was never created it just existed without beginning, and that is perfectly fine?

Good point. Both possibilities may present conceptual difficulties. 

[andrew s]

Another alternative is the block Universe where all 4d space time exists but we just happen to experience it one moment at a time.

Regards Andrew 

[vlaiv]

5 minutes ago, andrew s said:

Another alternative is the block Universe where all 4d space time exists but we just happen to experience it one moment at a time.

Regards Andrew 

Any particular mechanism by which anyone or anything could distinguish "slice" as present in such construct?

[John]

1 hour ago, Ouroboros said:

Are there any viable alternatives to the Big Bang theory? I am aware of the steady state theory for example. A perfectly reasonable theory, but one not confirmed by current observations of the universe.  But are there any others? 

Douglas Adams floated the concept of the "Gnab Gib" but that was a theory concerning how the universe ends rather than begins 😉

 

Edited August 31, 2023 by John

[Zermelo]

1 hour ago, Ouroboros said:

Good point. Both possibilities may present conceptual difficulties. 

Ah yes. Infinite existence, first causes, infinite chains of causes...

Thomas Aquinas had a lot to say about all that but, sadly for this forum, it's very hard to disentangle Aquinas the philosopher from Aquinas the theologian.

But as I said above, I suspect that at least part of our difficulty in coming to terms with this is down to our particular viewpoint within the thing that we're trying to explain.

[andrew s]

1 hour ago, vlaiv said:

Any particular mechanism by which anyone or anything could distinguish "slice" as present in such construct?

I don't know not really looked into it.  Regards Andrew

[Zermelo]

1 hour ago, John said:

Douglas Adams floated the concept of the "Gnab Gib" but that was a theory concerning how the universe ends rather than begins 😉

 

As is well known, it started with a burger bar and finished with a restaurant.

Or maybe:

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/781120-shh-said-ford-it-s-conical-so-what-you-do-is

[ollypenrice]

The problem is that we want to test assorted models against what seems reasonable to us - but what seems reasonable to us has been defined by very limited, and very local, experiences. The trick is to be willing to embrace what does not seem reasonable to us because, in all probability, that is where the truth will lie.

Olly

[wesdon1]

Hi again all. I found this interesting vid by the gorgeous and very interesting Dr Becky Smethurst on YT. It is a rather pertinent video for this current thread, I felt...

 

Clear skies!