What came before the Big Bang?

[godnotgod]

Please stop this. That claim is simply not true and if you understood the experiments behind QM better you would know this. Thats why the Dali Lama couldn't believe his own eyes.

Disregarding a human observer for the moment, we have this:

Q:
There's a lot of confusion between the uncertainty principle and the observer effect... So, to be clear (because there's a lot of conflicting info out there), when we talk about "observing" an electron and thereby changing its state, we're talking about using equipment to measure it, not simply observing with the naked eye, right?

A:

Right...there is a relation between the "observer effect" and the uncertainty principle. Mathematics requires that any wave, including purely classical ones, have a "spread" relation: ΔkΔx >= 1/2. That says that the spread (&#916 in the wavevector (k, sort of the inverse of the wavelength) times the spread in position (x) is greater than or equal to 1/2. The classical wave simply must have spreads in both these attributes, just as you can easily picture for water waves. We don't call this "uncertainty" or make a philosophical fuss about it because, as you can see by eye, the spreads in position and wavevector are real, persistent things.

What's weird about quantum waves, though, is that when they're "observed" or "measured" we don't see the full spread that was there in the wave. If you set up apparatus to measure x, you see an output that has a very narrow range of x, even if the input is a big spread of x. Likewise if you measure k, the output has a narrow range of k. It's as if the wavefunction "collapsed" in a way guided by the type of measurement made. As to which particular little range of, say, x it collapses to, there's just a probability rule. The detailed result is purely random, not guided by any prior content of the universe. That's what converts the quantum spread into quantum uncertainty.

3/5/13

Q & A: Observer Effect? | Department of Physics | University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

 

[idav]

Disregarding a human observer for the moment, we have this:

Q:
There's a lot of confusion between the uncertainty principle and the observer effect... So, to be clear (because there's a lot of conflicting info out there), when we talk about "observing" an electron and thereby changing its state, we're talking about using equipment to measure it, not simply observing with the naked eye, right?

A:

Right...there is a relation between the "observer effect" and the uncertainty principle. Mathematics requires that any wave, including purely classical ones, have a "spread" relation: ΔkΔx >= 1/2. That says that the spread (&#916 in the wavevector (k, sort of the inverse of the wavelength) times the spread in position (x) is greater than or equal to 1/2. The classical wave simply must have spreads in both these attributes, just as you can easily picture for water waves. We don't call this "uncertainty" or make a philosophical fuss about it because, as you can see by eye, the spreads in position and wavevector are real, persistent things.

What's weird about quantum waves, though, is that when they're "observed" or "measured" we don't see the full spread that was there in the wave. If you set up apparatus to measure x, you see an output that has a very narrow range of x, even if the input is a big spread of x. Likewise if you measure k, the output has a narrow range of k. It's as if the wavefunction "collapsed" in a way guided by the type of measurement made. As to which particular little range of, say, x it collapses to, there's just a probability rule. The detailed result is purely random, not guided by any prior content of the universe. That's what converts the quantum spread into quantum uncertainty.

3/5/13

Q & A: Observer Effect? | Department of Physics | University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Sure, no problems there. That site looks decent.

 

[idav]

Haha that part you snipped out is hilarious.

 

[idav]

The rest of the quote.

So people have good reason to link these effects and to be very puzzled by the whole business. As is common in cases of confusion, some people use the occasion to claim to be the center of the universe and to have magical powers. Other people buy it.

Q & A: Observer Effect? | Department of Physics | University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

 

[Thief]

Well all of this is entertaining.....

and it applies to the first big bang.....how?

 

[idav]

Well all of this is entertaining.....

and it applies to the first big bang.....how?

No observer prior to big bang.

 

[Thief]

No observer.

Ok....'Let there be light!'....and no one else saw Him do it.

Does a tree make a sound when it falls....and no one hears it?
If I pick your pocket and you didn't realize it...is the wallet still there?

 

[idav]

Ok....'Let there be light!'....and no one else saw Him do it.

Does a tree make a sound when it falls....and no one hears it?
If I pick your pocket and you didn't realize it...is the wallet still there?

If nobody observes it, it still happens.

 

[Thief]

If nobody observes it, it still happens.

and if God says....I AM!...and no one hears it?

He's still there.....right?

 

[idav]

and if God says....I AM!...and no one hears it?

He's still there.....right?

I suppose, wheres the evidence. At least the singularity looks to be eternal but doesn't appear to be an intelligent designer, at least not until humans and other animals get involved.

 

[Thief]

I suppose, wheres the evidence. At least the singularity looks to be eternal but doesn't appear to be an intelligent designer, at least not until humans and other animals get involved.

You then say....a creation is not evidence of a Creator?
( the existence is sufficient)

 

[idav]

You then say....a creation is not evidence of a Creator?
( the existence is sufficient)

Existing is not evidence of being created, in fact I am pretty certain I was born.

 

[godnotgod]

The rest of the quote.


Q & A: Observer Effect? | Department of Physics | University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Yup, exactly why I snipped it out, along with the text about human observation.

 

[Thief]

Existing is not evidence of being created, in fact I am pretty certain I was born.

No...no....no.....back to the beginning.

Was God there? or not?

If not then we can throw science under the bus and believe anything.
(nothing moves without Something to move it...including the bus)

 

[Maranatha]

Wow, 300 pages!

What came before the Big Bang?

For me, pure potentiality, pure 'thusness', pure unmanifest being.

 

[idav]

No...no....no.....back to the beginning.

Was God there? or not?

If not then we can throw science under the bus and believe anything.
(nothing moves without Something to move it...including the bus)

Yes of course and gods still here. After all the big bang happened everywhere.

 

[idav]

Yup, exactly why I snipped it out, along with the text about human observation.

The important aspect is we can't collapse it simply by looking/observing it. We collapse it by interfering with it. We have already managed to get passed all that, they are doing it in quantum computers, observing qubit as on and off at the same time without interfering with it, and they use the knowledge to choose the path of the qubit.

 

[outhouse]

Yes of course and gods still here. After all the big bang happened everywhere.

Unsubstantiated, that later mythological creations can be pushed back beyond what the mythology states in error due to the authors ignorance of the natural world, and not trying to literally describe it.

 

[idav]

Unsubstantiated, that later mythological creations can be pushed back beyond what the mythology states in error due to the authors ignorance of the natural world, and not trying to literally describe it.

Interesting opinion.

 

[Brigida H]

I believe in the Big Bang Theory
I believe in a Superior Being
What happened before the Big Bang Theory. Hmmm. I wonder how reincarnation came about and the possibilities of it being established before the Big Bang Theory.
Maybe we are matter and time travelers from a place similar to this one in hopes of evolving once again. All we needed was time on our side. So, here we are. .

Maybe it was space and light before the Big Bang Theory