What exists beyond the known universe?

[Freethinker]

This questions suffers from ambiguity. The words used and the linguistic construction allow for many personal interpretations. Viewer bias is very high.

Is it very likely that this question has no answert because it is not a ligitimate interogatory sentence.

e.g. he asks "what is beyond". This frames a specific intent. A request for knowledge about a specific thing. That specific thing is "known stuffs". Now if we KNOWof it's existence, it is in the set of "known stuffs". If we DON'T know of it's existence then it is OUTSIDE the set of "known stuffs", If we were to research as requested, we would have to gain NEW knowledge about stuff we DON'T know. At the onset of the research this stuff would be outsdide the set of "known stuffs". But as soon as we woould find out about it, as soon as we would KNOW something about it, it would emperically be identified with the set of "known stuffs".

Thus we can NEVER know about stuff we do not know about. But we can always learn about NEW stuff.

So the only answer to "what is beyond all the known stuffs in the universe?", is we can never know. No matter how many NEW things we learn, that become part of "known stuffs", we can't KNOW about them until we do.

[IrishEyes]

Geez, FreeT, you just have to go and get all technical, don't you?

Tim, could you please restate the question? We're all a little confuzzed right now.

[Uncle Martin]

I think Freethinker hit it on the head. Anything outside of our known universe(stuffs) is and will always be unknown. As it becomes known, it is no longer beyond our known universe (stuffs?). Very simple really.

[IrishEyes]

"I understand what I am much too smart to mention,.......to you". Fiona Apple

Beautiful. THAT...says it all.

[pie]

Truth, is it possible that our universe is like a movie back-lot. It really not there, but only appears to be there.

Only if a space craft goes out to the planet does it re-appear, similar to Scroders cat theoy, by being in hyper-position.

So for example, if everybody on Earth stops looking at the moon, the moon disappears from our universe, only to re-appear when someone tries to view it.

Quantium reality appears to have a conciouness on how many previous flips someone gave their quarter, in order to maintain the 50% probility. The same may be true for the double split experiment.

Is it true that once the electron is detected, the wave will change into a particle wave, and only when the researcher knows the result?

So if the results were written down on a sheet of paper, where nobody knew the answer (the assumption would be wave, but if a week later, the researcher finds the results, the text on the paper would change to show wave particle? - Is this true?

Thanks

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: pie
So for example, if everybody on Earth stops looking at the moon, the moon disappears from our universe, only to re-appear when someone tries to view it.

Hmmm... what if nobody looked at the moon in the first place?

I mean, if there was not a visible moon in the first place for people to look at, why would anyone look at it in the first place?

Thus the moon would never have a wave collapse for it to become visible the first time.

[Tormod]

Welcome, pie!

Originally posted by: pie
So for example, if everybody on Earth stops looking at the moon, the moon disappears from our universe, only to re-appear when someone tries to view it.

Great idea! Except the entire population of the Earth would not be able to look at the moon at the same time (since the Earth is round).

Quantium reality appears to have a conciouness on how many previous flips someone gave their quarter, in order to maintain the 50% probility. The same may be true for the double split experiment.

There is no consciousness behind quantum mechanics - pure probability and chance.

Is it true that once the electron is detected, the wave will change into a particle wave, and only when the researcher knows the result

So if the results were written down on a sheet of paper, where nobody knew the answer (the assumption would be wave, but if a week later, the researcher finds the results, the text on the paper would change to show wave particle? - Is this true?

I don't know how this fits in with this topic, exactly, but probability theory for fundamental particles (especially when it comes to Schrödinger's cat and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle) only applies to the fundamental particles and not to macroscopic objects. The cat experiment is related to the decay of an element which may or may not decay, triggering the release of gas which would kill the cat. Since the element can spntaneously decay, the cat may or may not be dead - which in theory creates a superposition between "dead cat" and "alive cat", meaning that until you check, both situations are equally *valid* (cat is both dead and alive) - in theory. The moment you check, the result is made clear and the probability for either alternative falls to 0 or 1 (the cat is either dead or alive).

However, this would not apply to words on a sheet of paper.

Tormod

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: pie

So if the results were written down on a sheet of paper, where nobody knew the answer (the assumption would be wave, but if a week later, the researcher finds the results, the text on the paper would change to show wave particle? - Is this true?

We'd never know it changed, would we?

Or perhaps it would just have the wrong answer on it. QM does not require that a person answers the question correctly.

[pie]

Tormod - thank you for your welcome into this forum.

Quantium would know when the researcher viewed the 2 slit experiment on the electon, and if from a distant star, light bent around another star, so there would be 2 views of the same star.

Again, once the 2 slit experiment was done with this split star light, the results would change from a wave to a particle wave, once the electon was detected.

The problem would be that in order for that to happen, the change would have been predestined, lets say 1000 years ago. Whereby the quantium physics knew that someone was gong to performe this experiment. - So yes, there does seem to be some type of consciouness behind knowing what the future will be, and quantium awarness on the 2 slit experiment.

If by chance the coin is flipped a hundred times and comes up 70% tails, the memory for the next hundred flips will favor 70% probibility for heads.

[Bo]

So for example, if everybody on Earth stops looking at the moon, the moon disappears from our universe, only to re-appear when someone tries to view it.

I Believe this was the basis of the god-proof of Pascal(?). He also said: Things only exist if one looks at them, yet it is a stupid idea to have things appearing and disappearing all the time, so an all-seeing god must exist, to mainain everyting at it's place...

Bo