By the way, they mentioned about "consciousness creates reality". So, if there was no an "Observer" who has consciousness when the BB proses, there would be no reality the universe has been expanding till now. Big bang needs something whom observes the process to become reality. And they called this consciousness is God. And this "consciousness god" creates our consciousness.
This is one of the most ridicuklous arguments I;ve ever heard. Your friends are quite literally arguing that objective reality doesn't exist.
Remember the old question, "if a tree falls in the forest, and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"
Your friends are arguing that, not only does the falling tree make no sound, if nobody is around to observe it the tree doesn't fall, and in fact
doesn't exist until a conscious entity arrives to observe it.
They're taking the word "observer" as it's used in physics (where "observer" can simply be another particle, and need not be a conscious entity) and pretending that the everyday definition of the word (necessarily a conscious entity) applies. They're conflating terminology, in the same way that creationists tend to inappropriately use the word "information" when it coenms to Information Theory.
They mentioned about "observer under quantum world", so this "object" has nothing to do with physic or any kind of laws. And it's existence doesn't need space-time. They believe "This observer" was triggering the reality of big bang became real.
And they're
speculating. Demand that they show evidence to support this bare assertion. If they can't, they're pulling this nonsense fromt their own imaginations.
I know, it has nothing to do with math or physics. And i believe this consciousness discussion is out of topic, isn't it? I don't understand it well, any way, lol
You know how kids argue about superheroes in comic books? "Superman can do this, so he'd totally beat the Hulk in a fight!" None of it is based on actual numbers, and it's all bare speculation with no substance backing up any of the arguments. This is how your friends are approaching physics.
They're engaging in something called "apologetics." Where science begins with observation, progresses to hypothesis, then prediction > experiment > data > conclusion, apologetics begins with a conclusion and searches for evidence to support that conclusion, typically ignoring any evidence to the contrary and almost always "bending" the evidence used in ways an unbiased scientist never would. Your friends believe in God, and they're coming up with comic-book-level silly apologetic claims to support their pre-existing conclusion.
Plus, how can i define the singularity with the most understandable human language? I know, it was a condition where the math breaks down. But, do you have any other words to describe it? With the most understandable human language , of course
As others have said, the easiest way to explain a singularity is simply "current mathematical models stop working under these conditions, so we need to learn more before we can accurately describe this." The heart of a black hole has a singularity because the warping of spacetime is so intense that we have no way to describe it in mathematical terms. T=0 results in a singularity because it requires that the entirety of the Universe exist as a single dimensionless point - try calculating speed when both distance and time are 0, or density when all the mass in teh Universe is condensed into a single dimensionless point of volume. Clearly, "normal" math doesn't work - we need more information about such exotic conditions before we can accurately describe them. Incidentally, that's one of the primary reasons the Large Hadron Collider was built - to duplicate on a smaller scale the conditions of the early Universe.
okay, i'll try to quote what they said
The big bang process is true. But, when the general relativity failed to explain "anything" what happened before the big bang, they used quantum approach to describe "who/what was there".
Every time your friends use the word "before" when referring to the Big Bang, they're not understanding.
The Big Bang is not explicitly an event - T=0 is not the Big Bang. neither is the Big Bang an explosion in the conventional sense.
The term "Big Bang" was coined by a
dissenter - a man who thought a competing theory was more accurate and was trying to
ridicule the notion that the Universe is expanding. Unfortunately, the name stuck, despite its inherant inaccuracy.
Big Bang theory posits that teh Universe is expanding - this means that as you approach T=0, the Universe is hotter, more dense, and "smaller." As you move away from T=0, any two points in space will grow farther and farther apart, not because of any motion but because literally the spacial dimensions are getting larger. This is somewhat like ants on a balloon - even if the ants do not actually move, they'll grow farther and farther apart as the balloon expands.
T=0 itself is unique int hat you can't have a "before." Time is a property of the Universe, just like length and width and height, much in the same way that North and South are properties of a globe - outside of their intended context, they simply don't make sense. Concepts like "before" and "after" require respectively lower and higher values of time than the present. At T=0, there
is no lower value, and so "before" doesn't have any meaning. Similarly, you can't go farther North than the North Pole - asking what's farther North just doesn't make sense.
Imagine a ray:
*----------------->
A ray begins at a discrete point and progresses infinitely in a single direction.
*A---------------B-------C------->
Point A is the beginning of the ray, and points B and C lie along it.
Let's say that point B is the present. C lies in the future, and A lies in the past.
What if A is the present? B and C lie int he future...but there is no point on the ray prior to A, and so there is no "past," no "before" relative to point A.
Point A is like T=0. "Before" T=0 just doesn't have any meaning, and betrays a lack of understanding of the concept of time.
Your friends are trating time like a line, where both directions extend infinitely, and T=0 is simply one point. That doesn't reflect reality, but it
does fit into their pre-existing conclusion that "God is eternal, and has always existed, and had to exist before the Unvierse so that He could create it." They're choosing a model based not on any math or objective evidence, but rather they choose a model based on their already-existing belief system. That's faulty reasoning.
The quantum mechanic said that reality comes true if there is an observer. The quantum mechanical description is in terms of knowledge, and knowledge requires somebody who knows. Quantum mechanics, the apparent requirement for a conscious, thinking observer who stands outside of the system and takes notes leaves many physicists cold.
I think cavediver and Son Goku (our resident real-life physicists) would get a kick out of that idea. Your friends are insisting that "observer" means "person." In physics, it means no such thing.
the philosophical implication of quantum mechanics is that the universe cannot exist in a vacuumat the level of indivisible particles, the universe has been constructed with a built-in need for people. Or God. Or both.
This is only true if "observer" means "conscious entity." In physics, it does not. An atom can be an observer - an observer is simply that which interacts with the subject. I'll let cavediver or Son Goku explain the collapse of a wave function, as I'm not likely to do so accurately.
Quantum theory seems to require us to step beyond the material to the metaphysical. It suggests a need for consciousness, for mind, for something that is more than just a collection of synapses in a glob of gray-matter. It seems to demand something transcendent, like intelligence or being.
No, it doesn't. That's an unsupported leap in logic - which is why you had to use the word "seems." Thats a personal subjective interpreation of the data, not something supported by objective evidence.
Think of it this way: a bloody knife can "seem" to require us to consider that a murder has taken place.
But that's not true. I could have simply cut myself by accident while chopping vegetables. Assuming "murder," or even considering murder as a more probable explanation for the bloody knife than any other possible explanation without additional evidence (a body, the amount of blood, etc) is an unfounded leap in logic - just like the assertion that quantum theory "suggests a need for itnelligence." This on top of the fact that such a conclusion requires using the word "observer" to inappropriately mean "cosscious mind," when that is flatly incorrect in physics.
Eugene Wigner, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist, in a classic essay on the implications of quantum theory, wrote that quantum theory is incompatible with the idea that everything, including the mind, is made up solely of matter: "[While a number of philosophical ideas] may be logically consistent with present quantum mechanics, ...materialism is not."
First, this is an appeal to authority, a logical fallacy.
Second, to paraphrase The Princess Bride, I do not think Mr. Wigner means what your friends think that he means. Quantum theory suggests some extremely counterintuitive implications as to the reality of matter and energy, space and time - all are simply perterbations in the quantum field. This has nothing whatsoever to do with any kind of "spiritual reality" or other sort of religious flim-flam.
Perhaps the most awesome implication of quantum mechanics is the possibility that the universe only functions because it is continually observed by one who never blinks nor sleeps.
There has to be an observer - a link between mind and matter.
The observer is definite and real, not described by a wave function Psi and probability Psi Squared. Measurement is the key concept. A change in the wave function Psi represents a change in our knowledge of the system. The observer must be outside the system of quantum theory. The observer's mind is the place where the decision is made that one state actually did occur - that is where probability is changed into fact.
I think they are Stephen Barr's big fans, lol
They just don't understand what an "observer" is in physics. They're anthropomorphising the concept and then running with it, leading them to wild, false conclusions.
The point is they used quantum mechanic to prove God/"intelligent being" exist before the big bang, as observer. Because "something"(big bang) needs an observer to become real.
Does it make any sense?
It makes perfect sense, in much the same way that Star Wars makes sense. Unfortunately for your friends, they've constructed a model that does not accurately represent reality. The only thing they've proven is that they lack any significant understanding about quantum mechanics, Big bang cosmology, time, or basically anything else in physics.
™ Version 4.2
