# Can someone explain something to me?



## Kevinaswell (May 6, 2009)

I don't think I agree with the concept of it all too much :O

Especially when I keep in mind the things I've read recently about the evolutionary functionality of 'time' existing. This idea is pretty dependent on time--and I just don't believe in time too much :O

At least in any ultimately concrete way. 

Anyways, the 'system' doesn't 'need' an observer--it just needs to be collapsed. A lot of places try to hippy the idea up by blaming every single thing that we see on our 'observance'. 

But this is not true, as things are happening whether we look at them or not because we used to never even be here :O 

I think the things that collapse the particle waves (and thus--into reality) is more likely any _interaction_ between any matter at all. And then, it 'seems' to collapse when we observe just because of the way our minds handle the world around us.

Obvi, though; it's a pretty theoretical topic and utterly fascinating and amazing <3.

EDIT: Also, this type of thing does not imply 'randomness' in the sense of our motivations and all that jazz. It's kind of like.....put a bunch of strings into a shoe box and shake 'em all up for like 10 minutes or something. Then take them out--now you have a DEFINABLE knot to untie--one that you can understand and efficiently disassemble and then even replicate later if you want too. This does not fit into my concept of randomness, but it does correlate to my idea of fundamental particles. 

Also, these 'particles' get weirder and weirder the deeper into them you get. Apparently, there is a particle deep within fermions (the variant of particles that are classified as 'matter') that essentially flips on and off :O I put it here: http://personalitycafe.com/science-...t-clue-helps-explain-why-universe-exists.html


----------



## Alaya (Nov 11, 2009)

What do you all guys think of the "Many Worlds" interpretation?

Like someone above said, the deeper we get in dissecting these particles, the weirder and weirder their hypothesis gets. There will get to a point that it will no longer be considered science since it would be all based on randomness and science cannot deal with the random but rather with the testable=experimental.


----------



## KyojiK (Apr 14, 2010)

Kevinaswell said:


> I don't think I agree with the concept of it all too much :O
> 
> Especially when I keep in mind the things I've read recently about the evolutionary functionality of 'time' existing. This idea is pretty dependent on time--and I just don't believe in time too much :O
> 
> ...


No, you're right. The system doesn't need to have observer to happen. The problem for us is that, without an observer, we don't know what happened. Our math doesn't allow us to know what happened before the observed state and our math doesn't allow us to know what will happen. Quantum physics isn't trying to sound magical or anything. A lot of times, its just interpreting the mathematics a bit too literally. Nikola Tesla said it best when he stated that when man becomes too enraptured of theoretical math, he begins to lose focus of the concept of reality. People need to remember this is all still just THEORETICAL MATH! It doesn't mean the reality of it has to be interpreted the same way.

In any case, classical physics is capable of determining the past and future of a system without an observer because, with it, we can determine every single bit of information regarding a system. When we know a system's velocity, we can also determine its position just as clearly. Quantum mechanics, however, gets iffy and seems to only be able to determine something in its present state and only a single bit of information, but we're working ever so hard to rectify this!


----------



## sofort99 (Mar 27, 2010)

Ha! It also explains Santa Clause. I wrote this years ago...


> A few years ago while sitting in front of the fire, smoking a pipe and drinking scotch I had cause to ponder Santa, it being the night before Christmas Eve. All of the explanations I have heard up until then... Santa has so many ten thousandths of a second to do his job and so forth, just sounded so clumsy.
> 
> And during my second scotch and while relighting my pipe, the answer came in an epiphany. Santa's elegant solution is found in Quantum Mechanics.
> 
> ...


----------



## sprinkles (Feb 7, 2010)

Kevinaswell said:


> I don't think I agree with the concept of it all too much :O
> 
> Especially when I keep in mind the things I've read recently about the evolutionary functionality of 'time' existing. This idea is pretty dependent on time--and I just don't believe in time too much :O
> 
> ...


I'm pretty sure that time is real in some sense, it is just our frame of reference which is relativistic. We need to keep a set standard to know wtf we are talking about when it comes to a frame of time, and it is generally set to standards of walking around on the earth.

Gravity (among other things) does effect sense of time though, but it makes it relativistic, it doesn't necessarily eliminate time completely.


----------



## sofort99 (Mar 27, 2010)

Everything is relative to c.


----------



## Wulfyn (May 22, 2010)

If I remember Schroedinger's thought experiment correctly wasn't it deliberately created to confuse. In his experiment the cat was both dead and alive, and it was his argument that this was impossible (using a cat in the box as an absurdio ad reductio argument)? That is to say that quantum theory does not work on a macroscopic level because wave functions are always collapsed way before that (for example by anything that can interact with it to collapse it)?


----------

