The wave-function of the universe

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rational T
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Universe
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the concept of the wave-function of the universe and whether its collapse requires an observer. Participants assert that since the universe is not in a superposition state, its wave-function must have collapsed at some point. A key point raised is that if wave-functions collapse due to observation, then an observer must have played a role in collapsing the universe's wave-function. However, there is a dispute over the terminology, with one participant emphasizing that "universal" and "universe" are not interchangeable. The conversation highlights the complexities of quantum mechanics and the necessity for clarity in discussing these concepts.
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.
 

Thread 'Two equivalent statements of time reversal symmetric Hamiltonian'

Time reversal invariant Hamiltonians must satisfy ##[H,\Theta]=0## where ##\Theta## is time reversal operator. However, in some texts (for example see Many-body Quantum Theory in Condensed Matter Physics an introduction, HENRIK BRUUS and KARSTEN FLENSBERG, Corrected version: 14 January 2016, section 7.1.4) the time reversal invariant condition is introduced as ##H=H^*##. How these two conditions are identical?
View full post »

Similar threads

High School Does the Schrödinger Equation Imply a Deterministic Universe?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
High School Can we say a photon doesn't exist until the wavefunction collapses?
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
High School Can someone please explain to me the motion of an electron?
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
Undergrad Are electrons universal problem solvers?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
Undergrad Is There A Study Showing The Observer Effect Ignoring Conscious Intent?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
Undergrad Number of qubits needed to simulate the universe
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
Graduate Can particles appear and disappear "with" a cause?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Undergrad How non-conscious can an Observer be and cause wave function collapse?
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
7K
High School Quantum entanglement and simultaneity
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
High School What happens to the wave function if....
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K