The wave-function of the universe

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rational T
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Universe
Rational T
Messages
45
Reaction score
0
We know the universe is not in a supposition state, so the wave-function of the universe must have collapsed at some point. However, since I am not all that familiar with physics, I wanted to know if this required an observer? If not, then how else could this have happened?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Rational T said:
We know the universe is not in a supposition state, so the wave-function of the universe must have collapsed at some point. However, since I am not all that familiar with physics, I wanted to know if this required an observer? If not, then how else could this have happened?

Can you describe what is this "wavefunction of the universe" that you seem to have a knowledge of?

Zz.
 
ZapperZ said:
Can you describe what is this "wavefunction of the universe" that you seem to have a knowledge of?

Zz.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_wavefunction

The universe is obviously not is a supposition state, if it was we would not be here. Since wave-functions collapse if there is an observer, then an observer must have collapsed the wave-function of the universe. If not, how else did the wave-function of the universe collapse?
 
Rational T said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_wavefunction

The universe is obviously not is a supposition state, if it was we would not be here. Since wave-functions collapse if there is an observer, then an observer must have collapsed the wave-function of the universe. If not, how else did the wave-function of the universe collapse?

You should read your own source very carefully. Universal is NOT the same as "universe"!

Zz.
 
ZapperZ said:
You should read your own source very carefully. Universal is NOT the same as "universe"!

Zz.

Saying "the wave-function of the universe" is the exact same thing as saying "the universal wave-function". According to your logic, universal laws and the laws of the universe are different because they are worded differently. You have presented nothing more than a semantical argument based on a misunderstanding.

The wave-function of the universe = The universal wave-function.

Since it takes an observer to collapse a wave-function, then it seems reasonable to assume that an observer collapsed the universal wave-function. If an observer did not collapse the universal wave-function, then what did? The universal wave-function obviously collapsed, or else we wouldn't be here and existence would just be in a quantum state of uncertainty.

This could all be completely wrong, but I would like to know why it is wrong. So far, you have not answered any of my questions sufficiently.
 
Sorry, but I don't think you know what you are talking about. You are making erroneous assumption of something you do not understand. Please reread the PF rules that you had agreed to.

Zz.
 
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the quasi-autonomy of the classical level and to quantify residual quantum corrections? By “emergent,” I mean the following: after integrating out fast/irrelevant quantum degrees of freedom (high-energy modes...
Back
Top