If the sun blew up...

[KennyJC]

It was not directed at you or anyone in particular, but related to the topic of people believing wether or not things can exist if no one is here etc.

 

[Sarkus]

There is a belief system (I forget what it's called) that the person is convinced that there nothing exists outside of their own mind.

Solipsism.

I have proof they are wrong as I exist.

The thing is you can't prove to that someone that you are anything more than just sensory inputs to that person's brain.

 

[c7ityi_]

gasplanets have rings around them. is the asteroid belt actually the sun's ring?

 

[Crunchy Cat]

If the sun exploded, destroying the Earth, would the universe still exist?

Yes

I mean, can the physical universe exist without anything to observe it?

Yes

Must there be an outside observer (ie. "God")?

No

Does time have meaning without anyone to observe?

Yes

Possibilities I've thought of:
1. God exists, and would keep directing the universe and probably create life again.
2. God does not exist now, but would come into existence when no other life existed, and disappear after making new life.

-Assume there is no other life in the universe.
-This is a thought experiment. Please do not argue by saying the sun won't explode, or life probably exists elsewhere. Anything else is fine.

3. The universe exists and life doesn't.

 

[Sarkus]

gasplanets have rings around them. is the asteroid belt actually the sun's ring?

Given that the same process most likely gave rise to the asteroid belt as gives rise to planetary ring systems, then the answer is YES. This process is most likely the break-up of orbiting satellites or the non-formation of a planet / satellite in the early stages of the solar-system formation.

 

[TheVisitor]

The information I provided by these links was intended to show that scientific findings are supporting a planet exploding caused the asteroid belt.
There is a definite explosion signature when the current trajectory of the debris are traced back to a common location source.

Also Mars is covered with a radioactive isotope of iodine Xe 129, that is left after nuclear weapons made with plutonium are detonated.
http://www.metaresearch.org/solar system/eph/eph2000.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iodides

 

[Finsnuffle]

There is no way to prove anything if there are no observations.

However, we know from observation that the Universe currently exists.
We can also observe light that existed prior to life on this planet - and thus can deduce that the universe existed prior to life.

The rational scientific conclusion is thus to assume that the Universe will continue on without other observers.
We can not categorically prove this - but it is certainly the most rational scientific conclusion.

This differs from the concept of God - where there is no evidence at all of its existence, either currently or in the past.

Yes - the evidence.

There are of course other explanations - all entirely logical....
Such as God having created the Universe with everything already in place. He could have done this 6000 years ago - he could have done it 6 seconds ago. There is no evidence that this is so. There is no evidence that this is not so. And nor can either situation be proven or disproven. It is thus not a valid scientific theory. And to believe this would be a matter of faith (i.e. zero evidence).

Thank you.

 

[wesmorris]

By the meaning of the term exist, we can only presume it would, as we presume it must have prior to our own existence.

By the application of the term, there would be nothing to apply, invoke or conceive of the notion. So can something "be" without being known to be? Given the nature of discovery, in that every day it's possible for us to discover things to be that we had no knowledge of, I presume yes.

So I'd say yes, things "exist" that are not yet or currently observed quite frequently.

 

[Trilairian]

If the sun exploded, destroying the Earth, would the universe still exist? I mean, can the physical universe exist without anything to observe it? Must there be an outside observer (ie. "God")? Does time have meaning without anyone to observe?

Possibilities I've thought of:
1. God exists, and would keep directing the universe and probably create life again.
2. God does not exist now, but would come into existence when no other life existed, and disappear after making new life.

-Assume there is no other life in the universe.
-This is a thought experiment. Please do not argue by saying the sun won't explode, or life probably exists elsewhere. Anything else is fine.

When I read this post I had thought I had clicked on my link to a physics and math sight. The depth of the question and its answer is over the heads of anyone not familiar with quantum mechanics and I find it to be an intriguing question. Without an observation a wave function does not collapse and the state of reality itself is indeterminate. It is therefor legitimate to ask whether anything could have formed into its current state without such an observer. On the other hand, if the ultimate observer, God, were to be continually observing *every scale* then all wave functions would be completely collapsed at all times and as a result nothing could decay. In other words though Einstein was right about relativity he was wrong about hidden variables - God does play dice with the universe. Few have the background to appreciate this, but even though the judeo-christian-islamic type of predeterministic god is thwarted by this aspect of quantum mechanics, in answer to your question the theory does indicate the necessity for a grand observer wary of all macroscopic things in order for the universe to exist in a determinate state in the absence of the intelligent life that evolved in it. What’s more, all fundamentally conserved things, observables, correspond to eigenvalues which are mathematical constants linking separable parts of differential equations and are outputs of operators corresponding to observations acting on a state vector. In essence what quantum mechanics posits to exist on a most basic level describing all that is physical is mathematical quantities and vectors. But how can state vectors and mathematical quantities like eigen vectors be what we have at the most fundamental level without a mind in which to exist even if that mind refrains from conscious observation of the subatomic scale?

 

[Crunchy Cat]

...in answer to your question the theory does indicate the necessity for a grand observer wary of all macroscopic things in order for the universe to exist in a determinate state in the absence of the intelligent life that evolved in it...

That's simply not true. The quantum world shows that small particles can exist in multiple locations at once for quite a duration of time and that introduction of a relationship that requires a specific location will collapse those particles into one location. It also consequently shows that particles that lose their relationship with their surroundings can't be observed anymore by constructs within the former surroundings.

When you remove sentient observers, you are not removing the environmental relationships. They still exist and will still collapse each other into specific locations without any form of decoherence.

 

[TheVisitor]

Few have the background to appreciate this, but even though the judeo-christian-islamic type of predeterministic god is thwarted by this aspect of quantum mechanics

The reality of God is far beyond the reasoning ability of the carnal human mind, yet it is revealed in the simplicity that a child can not err therein.
A child.......of God, born of the Spirit with the mind of Christ.
The natural and spiritual operate in opposite directions.

"I thank thee Father, that thou hast hidden these things from the wise and prudent and revealed them unto babes such as willing to learn."

 

[Trilairian]

That's simply not true. The quantum world shows that small particles can exist in multiple locations at once for quite a duration of time and that introduction of a relationship that requires a specific location will collapse those particles into one location. It also consequently shows that particles that lose their relationship with their surroundings can't be observed anymore by constructs within the former surroundings.

When you remove sentient observers, you are not removing the environmental relationships. They still exist and will still collapse each other into specific locations without any form of decoherence.

It absolutely is true. Your knowledge of quantum mechanics is superficial at best.

 

[Trilairian]

The reality of God is far beyond the reasoning ability of the carnal human mind, yet it is revealed in the simplicity that a child can not err therein.
A child.......of God, born of the Spirit with the mind of Christ.
The natural and spiritual operate in opposite directions.

"I thank thee Father, that thou hast hidden these things from the wise and prudent and revealed them unto babes such as willing to learn."

So your saying thank him for hidding these mysteries from you yourself as you aren't willing to learn, but revealing them to those scientists who were willing to accept the facts. Ok

 

[Crunchy Cat]

It absolutely is true.

I utterly disagree; however, I can suspend judgment if you can and intend to provide evidence of the claim.

Your knowledge of quantum mechanics is superficial at best.

Then show the proof and educate me.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Trilairian,

Taking a step back, I want to ensure I understood your assertion correctly. My interpretation of the statement:

"...in answer to your question the theory does indicate the necessity for a grand observer wary of all macroscopic things in order for the universe to exist in a determinate state in the absence of the intelligent life that evolved in it... "

is

'Quantum theory indicates the necessity for a sentient observer aware of all macroscopic things in order for the universe to exist in a determinate state specifically when the universe is absent of it's own sentient life.'

or reducing the message:

'Without a sentient observer, superpositions exclusively exist'

 

[thedevilsreject]

things can exist without people seeing them, half the molecules in the world existed when nobody could see them so surely it could when we all die

 

[Trilairian]

things can exist without people seeing them, half the molecules in the world existed when nobody could see them so surely it could when we all die

No, not in a definite or collapsed state.

 

[Trilairian]

I utterly disagree; however, I can suspend judgment if you can and intend to provide evidence of the claim.



Then show the proof and educate me.

Just look up what are typically assigned as the very first two and the fourth postulates of quantum mechanics. You'll find they are what I was saying. Try doing a google search on "Postulates of quantum mechanics" and then you can come back and quote here what the first two and fourth on the first link it spits out are and then I will demonstrate how they mean just what I have already said.

What did you expect? After all you are talking to the guy that was probably first to write the *tensor version* of the Klein-Gordon law with the inclusion of an arbitrary four-vector potential equation 3.1.5a at
http://www.geocities.com/zcphysicsms/chap3.htm
wherein all one has to do to include gravitation is go from <FONT FACE=SYMBOL>h</FONT> to g.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Just look up what are typically assigned as the very first two and the fourth postulates of quantum mechanics. You'll find they are what I was saying. Try doing a google search on "Postulates of quantum mechanics" and then you can come back and quote here what the first two and fourth on the first link it spits out are and then I will demonstrate how they mean just what I have already said.

My second post concerning my interpretation of your original statement wasn't commented on so I'll assume my interpretation is correct in that its being claimed that superposition exclusively exist without sentient observation.

I don't see the relationship between the claim and quantum postulates 1,2, and 4 and my copying some web page is not going to be a very fruitful exercise. In my opinion your interpretation for these postulates is an important part of providing evidence and I will go ahead and provide my interpreation of these postulates as I think that will be far more helpful to you.

1. The state of a quantum system is determined by the Wave Function which can also be used to detemine the probability a particle is located within an area of space-time.

2. Dynamic variables can be constrained to discreet sets of values and unbound states can have a continuum of magnitudes for non-null/transformable vectors.

4. Every qualitiative measurement of classical mechanics has a corresponding self-adjoint operator.

What did you expect? After all you are talking to the guy that was probably first to write the *tensor version* of the Klein-Gordon law with the inclusion of an arbitrary four-vector potential equation 3.1.5a at
http://www.geocities.com/zcphysicsms/chap3.htm
wherein all one has to do to include gravitation is go from <FONT FACE=SYMBOL>h</FONT> to g.

My expectation is that anyone whom can take Klein-Gordon Law with an arbitrary multi-vector equation and express it in linear/geometric generalization would want translate his knowledge and skill into concepts and language that are useful in a public discussion as well as take full ownership of a position rather than trying to coerce others into exercises with silly pseudo-dominance games.

 

[Trilairian]

...
1. The state of a quantum system is determined by the Wave Function which can also be used to detemine the probability a particle is located within an area of space-time.

2. Dynamic variables can be constrained to discreet sets of values and unbound states can have a continuum of magnitudes for non-null/transformable vectors.

4. Every qualitiative measurement of classical mechanics has a corresponding self-adjoint operator.
...

I cut all the unimportant rambling and am at least left with your paraphrase of a few of the postulates.
You deceptively chose not to do as I asked to go to the FIRST link under the google search for "Postulates of quantum mechanics" and instead either used a different search engine or kept looking until you found one with them in a different order so as to loose the important second one to an irrelevent latter one.
You paraphrase the first as

...
1. The state of a quantum system is determined by the Wave Function which can also be used to detemine the probability a particle is located within an area of space-time.
...

You shouldn't have cut the completeness aspect as it changes the meaning! The first one is not merely a statement about probability of location, but is a statement that EVERYTHING you can at all know about the system is *completely* determined by the wave function, not just that it is determined by the wave function and not just that its position alone is determined by the wave function. You should have quoted it thus:

The state of a quantum mechanical system is COMPLETELY specified by a function Psi....

wahttp://vergil.chemistry.gatech.edu/notes/quantrev/node20.html
Therefor when the wave function Psi is a sum or continuum of Eingenstates, the state of the system is indeterminate. There is nothing more than probability about what particular Eigenstate you will find it in upon the measurement that is described by the wave function, and because the wave function is complete the indeterministic state descibed by the wave function is all that there exists to know about it. This is the importance of the completeness statement that you cut. Now compare that information with what I said:

Without an observation a wave function does not collapse and the state of reality itself is indeterminate. It is therefor legitimate to ask whether anything could have formed into its current state without such an observer. On the other hand, if the ultimate observer, God, were to be continually observing *every scale* then all wave functions would be completely collapsed at all times and as a result nothing could decay. In other words though Einstein was right about relativity he was wrong about hidden variables - God does play dice with the universe. Few have the background to appreciate this, but even though the judeo-christian-islamic type of predeterministic god is thwarted by this aspect of quantum mechanics, in answer to your question the theory does indicate the necessity for a grand observer wary of all macroscopic things in order for the universe to exist in a determinate state in the absence of the intelligent life that evolved in it.

Now had you been honest and gone to the first link under the search I gave you, you would have found that the second in the order at that link was

In any measurement of the observable associated with operator A, the only values that will ever be observed are the eigenvalues a, which satisfy the eigenvalue equation A(Psi) = a(Psi)

http://vergil.chemistry.gatech.edu/notes/quantrev/node20.html
This corresponds to where I said

What’s more, all fundamentally conserved things, observables, correspond to eigenvalues which are mathematical constants linking separable parts of differential equations and are outputs of ...

The fourth you paraphrase

Every qualitiative measurement of classical mechanics has a corresponding self-adjoint operator.

This corresponds to where I said

...operators corresponding to observations acting on a state vector.