Quantum tunneling and the universe

[Chalnoth]

However, the theory of inflation predicts the universe is flat:

"The current theoretical belief (because it is predicted by the theory of cosmic inflation) is that the universe is flat..." - http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/question35.html

Inflation doesn't predict absolute flatness. It merely predicts that the universe is driven from whatever curvature it started with towards extreme flatness.

 

[audioloop]

the wave-function of self-collapsed? If so, how often does this really occur in the real world [STRIKE]without external measurement being a necessary condition?[/STRIKE]

right.
called the collapse of the state vector

...an inherently probabilistic physical collapse, not limited as in the Copenhagen interpretation to measurement by a macroscopic apparatus, but occurring at all scales...

 

[Rational T]

right.
called the collapse of the state vector

...an inherently probabilistic physical collapse, not limited as in the Copenhagen interpretation to measurement by a macroscopic apparatus, but occurring at all scales...

So it is self-collapsing, if not being caused to collapse by anything external. This means the universe is conscious. A self-collapsing wave function is a conscious experience. Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff's Orch-Or theory shows this, and nobody has been able to refute it.

 

[Rational T]

right.
called the collapse of the state vector

...an inherently probabilistic physical collapse, not limited as in the Copenhagen interpretation to measurement by a macroscopic apparatus, but occurring at all scales...

This has been all I was trying to get at. If the wave-function of the universe wasn't collapsed by anything external, then it is self-collapsing. Since self-collapsing wave functions most likely equates to a conscious experience (nobody has refuted Orch-Or to date), then this proves the universe is conscious. This means, all acausal tunneling from nothing models fail, because they don't touch on what collapsed the universal wave-function, and neglect that is necessarily due to a conscious experience.

 

[audioloop]

Also, 's only works if is closed:

"The only verifiable (in principle) of the is that must be closed." - http://mukto-mona.net/science/physics/a_vilinkin/universe_from_nothing.pdf

re-read the post.

already posted:

for tunneling universe

Cosmology and Open Universes
http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9905056.pdf

...Restricting ourselves to the Tunneling boundary condition, and applying it in turn to each of these curvatures, it is shown that quantum cosmology actually suggests that be open, k = −1...Quantum Creation of an Open Inflationary Universe
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9802038

If one uses the tunneling wave function for the description of creation of , then in most inflationary the universe should have Ω = 1, which agrees with the standard expectation that inflation makes the universe flat.Nonsingular instantons for the creation of open universes
Phys. Rev. D 59, 043509

We show that the instability of the singular Vilenkin instanton describing the creation of an open universe can be avoided using, instead of a minimally coupled scalar field, an axionic massless scalar field which gives rise to the Giddings-Strominger instanton.

you have to read more about current models to get a wide idea, not only from vilenkin (of boundary proposals)
Brane Cosmology
Boundary Cosmology
Bounce Cosmology
Quiescent Cosmology and other approaches...

 

[Rational T]

re-read the post.

already posted:

None of that has to do with the fact that a self-collapsing wave-function is a conscious experience. You admitted that the universal wave-function is self-collapsing, then this proves an ultimate consciousness. So, it seems science has proved what humans have known for thousands of years already. Thanks for your help!

 

[Chalnoth]

So it is self-collapsing, if not being caused to collapse by anything external. This means the universe is conscious.

No, it doesn't. Not by any stretch of the imagination. No consciousness is required for collapse, as I already showed you earlier.

 

[Rational T]

No, it doesn't. Not by any stretch of the imagination. No consciousness is required for collapse, as I already showed you earlier.

Yes, but your answer neglected Orch-Or.

 

[Rational T]

No, it doesn't. Not by any stretch of the imagination. No consciousness is required for collapse, as I already showed you earlier.

I suggest looking into Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff's work. A self-collapsing wave-function is a conscious experience.

 

[audioloop]

None of that has to do with the that a -collapsing wave-function is a conscious experience. You admitted that the universal wave-function is -collapsing, then this proves an ultimate . So, it seems science has proved what humans have known for thousands of years already. Thanks for your help!

has to do with your post:

AAlso, Alexander's model only works if the universe is closed: 's only works if the universe is closed:

"The only verifiable (in principle) prediction of the model is that the universe must be closed." - http://mukto-mona.net/science/physics/a_vilinkin/universe_from_nothing.pdf

 

[Chalnoth]

I suggest looking into Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff's work. A self-collapsing wave-function is a conscious experience.

Oh, well, that would be because that's pseudoscientific nonsense that has no place in any sort of serious discussion. It's really sad that Penrose has more or less gone off the deep end. But it does happen.

 

[audioloop]

No, it doesn't. Not by any of the imagination. No is required for collapse, as I already showed you earlier.

right,

Collapse of the State Vector
Steven Weinberg
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1109.6462.pdf
http://pra.aps.org/abstract/PRA/v85/i6/e062116

...the state vector of any system, large or small, undergoes a stochastic evolution. The general class of theories is described, in which the probability distribution of the state vector collapses to a sum of delta functions, one for each possible final state, with coefficients given by the Born rule...

 

[Rational T]

Oh, well, that would be because that's pseudoscientific nonsense that has no place in any sort of serious discussion. It's really sad that Penrose has more or less gone off the deep end. But it does happen.

Appeal to ridicule fallacy.

 

[audioloop]

Appeal to ridicule fallacy.

I finally got an answer to my question by a poster on this site, and my thread gets removed. I broke no rules, so it seems some mod out there drunk with power. It is utterly pitiful, as I thought this was supposed to be a legitimate physics website, not one with corrupt mods.

be careful with your opinions, claims.

 

[Rational T]

be careful with your claims.

I am careful. Claiming something is "nonsense" without reasoning is an appeal to ridicule fallacy. Anybody can hand wave something away and mock it. That says nothing with regards to it's validity.

 

[Chalnoth]

I am careful. Claiming something is "nonsense" without reasoning is an appeal to ridicule fallacy. Anybody can hand wave something away and mock it. That says nothing with regards to it's validity.

I ridicule the Orch-OR theory because it deserves to be ridiculed. It's really that bad. The Wikipedia article has a somewhat okay summary of why it's so bad:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orch-OR#Criticism

 

[audioloop]

I ridicule the Orch-OR theory because it deserves to be ridiculed. It's really that bad. The article has a somewhat okay summary of why it's so bad:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orch-OR#Criticism

Chal do not lose your time.

 

[Rational T]

I ridicule the Orch-OR theory because it deserves to be ridiculed. It's really that bad. The Wikipedia article has a somewhat okay summary of why it's so bad:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orch-OR#Criticism

"Recently the debate has focused round papers by Reimers et al. and McKemmish et al. and Hameroff's replies to these, which is not regarded as being independently reviewed. The Reimers paper claimed that microtubules could only support 'weak' 8 MHz coherence, but that the Orch-OR proposals required a higher rate of coherence. Hameroff, however, claims that 8 MHz coherence is sufficient to support the Orch-OR proposal. McKemmish et al. makes two claims; firstly that aromatic molecules cannot switch states because they are delocalised. Hameroff, however, claims that he is referring to the behaviour of two or more electron clouds; secondly McKemmish shows that changes in tubulin conformation driven by GTP conversion would result in a prohibitive energy requirement. Against this, Hameroff claims that all that is required is switching in electron cloud dipole states produced by London forces.

You are right there are rebuttals. Too bad you neglect the fact that Hameroff answers all of them.

 

[Chalnoth]

You are right there are rebuttals. Too bad you neglect the fact that Hameroff answers all of them.

If only they were answered in a coherent manner that made any sense.

 

[audioloop]

None of that has to do with the fact that a -collapsing wave-function is a conscious experience. You admitted that the universal wave-function is self-collapsing, then this proves an ultimate consciousness. So, it seems science has proved what humans have known for thousands of years already. Thanks for your help!

self collapse comes from nonlinear quantum mechanics, nothing to do with conscious universe.

 

[Rational T]

If only they were answered in a coherent manner that made any sense.

What was incoherent about it?

 

[Chalnoth]

What was incoherent about it?

Honestly, it's not worth my time. It doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with the topic at hand anyway, as the topic at hand has nothing whatsoever to do with the quantum nature (or lack thereof) of human consciousness. The question of whether or not observation is required to cause decoherence is a separate question, and I've already posted an observational demonstration of the fact that no conscious observer is required whatsoever.

 

[Rational T]

Honestly, it's not worth my time. It doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with the topic at hand anyway, as the topic at hand has nothing whatsoever to do with the quantum nature (or lack thereof) of human consciousness. The question of whether or not observation is required to cause decoherence is a separate question, and I've already posted an observational demonstration of the fact that no conscious observer is required whatsoever.

"Honestly, it's not worth my time. "

So it is worth your time to call something "nonsense" without foundation, but not worth your time to actually support this assertion sufficiently. How convenient...

"It doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with the topic at hand anyway, as the topic at hand has nothing whatsoever to do with the quantum nature (or lack thereof) of human consciousness."

Fair enough, but it is relevant to quantum tunneling models. Quantum Tunneling relies on a wave-function that must collapse. If self-collapsing wave-functions are conscious experiences, then there are huge problems with quantum tunneling models if this fact is neglected. Basically, quantum tunneling models are trying to show that an Atheistic universe is possible. However, if a self-collapsing wave function if a conscious experience, then the model fails at its task.

"The question of whether or not observation is required to cause decoherence is a separate question, and I've already posted an observational demonstration of the fact that no conscious observer is required whatsoever."

Yes, you did, and I appreciate that. You have been very helpful in this thread and I cannot thank you enough. However, your response only works if Orch-Or is false. Since you do not wish to support this assertion, then I'm not sure how valid your response is.

 

[Rational T]

Honestly, it's not worth my time. It doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with the topic at hand anyway, as the topic at hand has nothing whatsoever to do with the quantum nature (or lack thereof) of human consciousness. The question of whether or not observation is required to cause decoherence is a separate question, and I've already posted an observational demonstration of the fact that no conscious observer is required whatsoever.

Either way, I thank you. You have provided many answers that left me with more knowledge than before. So, I do not feel this conversation has been worthless.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Orch-Or, or any quantum conciousness hypothesis for that matter, is not accepted by mainstream neuroscience. At the moment such proposals are little more than speculation with no real evidence to back them up. The time to tentatively accept a hypothesis is after it has met it's burden of proof, not before.