I don't get Shrodinger's cat scenario, or by extension, quantum physics.

[destrekor]

i think we're talking past one another here.

our observable universe includes things that, due to universal expansion, will move on past the horizon. that isn't because either we or they are moving faster than the speed of light, but because the universe itself is expanding at a rate faster than the speed of light. i know that, and nothing i've written has been intended to dispute that, nor should it be construed that way.

however, i have not read anything that says that to us as an observer, those distant galaxies themselves are expanding. rather, the universe between us and them is expanding. those observations jive with general relativity, as when solved for a homogenous universe (which the space between superclusters resembles), the universe is expanding, but when solved for a heterogenous universe (which the superclusters resemble) it's not.

so, my question, what happens to a photon that gets sent out to the void between superclusters, but where it is going is moving away from it due to expansion at such a speed that it never gets there?

Answer to the bolded:
No, the universe itself is certainly not expanding at a rate faster than the speed of light, nor is it likely to have ever done so. However, where it can be confusing is to acknowledge that if you pick any two random objects, you might be able to observe that, from the point of view of each object, the other has moved away at a speed faster than light. But this is only because the physical fabric of space is expanding between the two at some defined rate.
I read a good analogy and will repeat it here: picture a ball of dough with raisins in it. When you bake it, the total volume increases in the ball of dough, and most of the raisins will have a greater distance between them, and will move apart from one another faster than others. But if you pictured it expansion from a central point with hemispheres, two raisins on opposite hemispheres but otherwise very close to each other, will move apart, but in this case, do so much slower from their respective points of view when compared to two raisins at opposite edges of the ball.

So, it's sort of a trick question/answer, because no object is moving faster than light on its own, and the appearance that any two objects are moving apart from one another at a speed greater than light is only true if you are using one of those objects as a stationary object.

Now, to answer your question regarding a photons travel: as I understand it, if a photon leaves one galaxy which, from our POV is moving away from us faster than light, then said photon will never reach our eyes and that galaxy will appear to freeze and then fade away if it's currently in our observable universe, or we'll simply never see it and never know where it came from.

But I'd like to fashion it as similar to the following: if a tree falls in the middle of the woods, when it makes a sound but nobody is around to here it, what happens to the sound waves?

The photon continues to exist, and continues to travel. If we were to get into a spaceship that could travel at any respectable fraction of C, we could eventually intersect with that photon. We wouldn't even have to travel faster than light, we just have to move toward it, away from our current location that is also moving away. If we could set a probe that froze itself in place in the universe, even while we moved away from it, at some very distant point in time, said probe will see the photon.

 

[mikeymikec]

I like this cat picture:

He looks like he's trying to figure out the puzzle as well.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Soooo... Things can move away from each other faster than the speed of light, right?

Take the sun. A photon of light shooting out from one pole and another photon shooting out from the opposite pole. Both are traveling in completely opposite directions, both at the speed of light. The speed at which they are moving away from each other will thus be 2C, right?

At the start of the Big Bang, particles would have shot outwards at the speed of light in opposite directions.

There are things in the universe that are unobservable and forever impossible to observe, because they are moving away from us faster than the speed of light, right? They aren't breaking the light speed barrier and neither are we, but the speed of separation is additive and greater than the speed of light. There would basically be no way for anything to catch up to and close the gap in this scenario.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Has it been confirmed that quantum entanglement operates instantaneously across space-time? If one particle changes its spin would the other particle, perhaps millions of light years away, instantly change its spin to correspond? Spooky action at a distance has been confirmed, right? But no one knows *how* this happens?

 

[destrekor]

Soooo... Things can move away from each other faster than the speed of light, right?

Take the sun. A photon of light shooting out from one pole and another photon shooting out from the opposite pole. Both are traveling in completely opposite directions, both at the speed of light. The speed at which they are moving away from each other will thus be 2C, right?

At the start of the Big Bang, particles would have shot outwards at the speed of light in opposite directions.

There are things in the universe that are unobservable and forever impossible to observe, because they are moving away from us faster than the speed of light, right? They aren't breaking the light speed barrier and neither are we, but the speed of separation is additive and greater than the speed of light. There would basically be no way for anything to catch up to and close the gap in this scenario.

Yes the speed would be additive.

However, it is unknown if when the universe came into existence if it immediately expanded at the speed of light. There are too many unknowns about the early moments. Particles weren't even in existence yet, it was essentially one large cloud of plasma IIRC, full of de-ionized "stuff." It is possible it expanded faster than C, but it is also possible the actual constant C had not become established at the point in which the universe expanded at the greatest rate of volume expansion, because the electromagnetic spectrum itself may not have existed so early on. At which point everything "proper" came into existence is greatly debated, for obvious reasons (our models basically break down at or just beyond the Cosmological Microwave Background - which was likely hundreds of millions of years after the big bang).

The big bang could have been a finite and nearly infinitely dense point, or more likely could have been a possibly large and finite region of incredibly hot and dense stuff. It is thought that initial quantum fluctuations created a disturbance, and from that, some force initiated the inflationary period, going from an incredibly small region to a large proportion of where the universe stands today in size in many orders of magnitude smaller than a second. One might argue this demands expansion faster than C, but what is C when the literal fabric of space is just coming into existence?
It is either during or just following the inflationary period where the currently unfathomable moment occurs: some moment in time when quarks and anti-quarks no longer annihilate each other to balance out, which eventually allows matter to dominate anti-matter and protons come into existence.

I think I have some of this grossly wrong while trying to both recall and simplify it, but the fact of the matter is, it's not a written law as of yet, and what happens, how fast it happens, what is generated when, it's all really conjecture. It is the most widely theorized and least agreed upon state of our universe, many competing theories exist for even the smallest differences in the overall timeline of the cosmological inflation.

Because of that, I find it inaccurate to say expansion ever occurred faster than light, even if there's a footnote you have to append to that statement.

 

[Charmonium]

Has it been confirmed that quantum entanglement operates instantaneously across space-time? If one particle changes its spin would the other particle, perhaps millions of light years away, instantly change its spin to correspond? Spooky action at a distance has been confirmed, right? But no one knows *how* this happens?

At this point, no. We know that according to Bell's Theorem, for QM to work you need to sacrifice locality or reality (things exist even when not observed). And we know that the violation of locality is not due to something known as local hidden variables. So in a sense we understand but the idea of non-locality is so alien to us we think that there needs to be MORE of an explanation. At this point, there doesn't seem to be but there are still a lot of things we don't understand. The standard model, for as well tested and consistent as it seems to be, doesn't explain everything.

For example, according the SM, empty space should have 10^120 times more energy in it than we observe. That's a pretty glaring and embarrassingly incorrect prediction.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Yes the speed would be additive.

The speeds are not exactly additive. The speed of both photons is exactly C from any point of view. If I were standing at the point of origin of the two photons they would both appear to be traveling at the speed of light away from me, and the distance between them would be increasing at 2C, but if I were Photon A and looked back at Photon B it would appear to be moving away from me at exactly the speed of light, and the distance between me (Photon A) and Photon B would appear to be increasing at only C. If I was in a spaceship moving at half the speed of light at an oblique angle to the two photons I would look at each of them and see both of them moving away from me at C. When we talk about speeds approaching C time starts to contract instead of the speed of the objects increasing.

 

[destrekor]

The speeds are not exactly additive. The speed of both photons is exactly C from any point of view. If I were standing at the point of origin of the two photons they would both appear to be traveling at the speed of light away from me, and the distance between them would be increasing at 2C, but if I were Photon A and looked back at Photon B it would appear to be moving away from me at exactly the speed of light, and the distance between me (Photon A) and Photon B would appear to be increasing at only C. If I was in a spaceship moving at half the speed of light at an oblique angle to the two photons I would look at each of them and see both of them moving away from me at C. When we talk about speeds approaching C time starts to contract instead of the speed of the objects increasing.

I guess I meant to qualify that as the growth of distance between them.

I hadn't thought about the actual apparent speed from the POV of either photon. That much I actually don't get - that's where my understanding of relativity falls apart.

 

[SMOGZINN]

I guess I meant to qualify that as the growth of distance between them.

I hadn't thought about the actual apparent speed from the POV of either photon. That much I actually don't get - that's where my understanding of relativity falls apart.

One way to think of it is as we approach C objects move faster and faster, but once we reach C instead of moving faster the object just starts to move slower though time.

 

[Jeff7]

But in what universe did the simulation creators beget our universe?

It's simulations all the way down, that answer should be obvious.

I like the idea of the universe being a "simulation" but more appropriately, as a computational energy that just happens to have emulated life, a goal which was not necessarily the express purpose.
But I like self-contained theories that don't require a whole new level of WTF to account for as an origin.

I see what we call "life" as a natural outgrowth of the chemicals and physics of this here universe. Our existence is possible because the conditions permit it.
If it is a simulation, that may or may not have been a goal. Kind of like baking bread, you're not concerned with the life of an individual yeast cell, you just care that the mass of them produces alcohol and carbon dioxide, before slaughtering the entire population in your oven.

I prefer the idea that, if there is a such thing as a god, our universe is more likely to simply be the brain of a subspace intelligence/being, not the product of some such being. Or it could be, because a young one's imagination is wildly creative.

The product of a young one: If God is of a race of beings, possibly many creating universes, somewhere there will be a "worst creator," some deranged guy tinkering in his basement, making universes just to screw with the inhabitants.

That, or our universe is intelligent but not sentient on its own, rather, all sentient lifeforms can "ascend" to become integrated with the collective consciousness.
Of which could still represent the other ideas: the universe could be the brain or source of intelligence for an otherworldly being that can act upon other universes or whatever is out there outside our universe; or it could be the end goal of a simulation to achieve a large collective consciousness to achieve full computational capability, or self awareness, or who knows what; or, what I'd consider preferable, the collective consciousness is simply what could be the end goal for life, something akin to becoming one with a god... which, you know, that could answer a lot of things if any historical stories are rooted in reality, if even remotely.

Consciousness and memory are just ways of encoding and processing information. Our benchmark of self-awareness means that you're conscious of the fact that you're conscious and that you exist.
Maybe the Universe is capable of that on a massive scale? Possibly. Maybe. 10^-29% chance maybe. Not much we can do about it, either way.

I definitely want their to be a collective consciousness and ability to ascend. That's just too cool. I'll take what I get, of course, but I definitely want a universe like Stargate SG1. :awe:

I don't know, it sounds like they've got a bunch of wonky rules there among the ascended.
But, you can also travel freely through space and sometimes troll primitive life forms, so there's that.

But I'm humbled by and mostly prefer the notion that our universe may be part of a larger multiverse, but otherwise, that's where it stops. The typical representation of such is that there may be certain ways in which the universes are connected, but otherwise, nothing can exist inside the gap between the multiverse and any individual universe. The possibility of an external creator is still valid in a multiverse, though I wouldn't prefer that, but, I realize, I can't always get what I want, but I try sometimes.

It's kind of a shame for some though, like having some universes out there where the physical constants are extremely different from what we have: A universe pops into existence and then immediately collapses on itself.....kind of like our idea of virtual particle pairs popping out of empty space everywhere all the time and immediately annihilating each other.



(How much of this is theoretical physics vs hypothetical physics now? ....versus pure conjecture.)

 

[destrekor]

(How much of this is theoretical physics vs hypothetical physics now? ....versus pure conjecture.)

... all of the above! :sneaky:

 

[flexy]

the universe could be the brain or source of intelligence for an otherworldly being that can act upon other universes or whatever is out there outside our universe;
[...]
Consciousness and memory are just ways of encoding and processing information.
[...]
Our benchmark of self-awareness means that you're conscious of the fact that you're conscious and that you exist.
[...]
Maybe the Universe is capable of that on a massive scale?

Why "maybe"? "Maybe" the universe is doing *exactly that*, we are this consciousness of the universe. We are the universe becoming aware of itself, becoming conscious - and then, according to QT...(now it gets even better ) the universe even bringing itself into existence because of this "becoming aware of itself".

There is a reason why some philosophies say we are "part of a grander whole" or "part of one".... once you stop seeing ourselves, our minds, separate from "the universe".

 

[destrekor]

Why "maybe"? "Maybe" the universe is doing *exactly that*, we are this consciousness of the universe. We are the universe becoming aware of itself, becoming conscious - and then, according to QT...(now it gets even better ) the universe even bringing itself into existence because of this "becoming aware of itself".

There is a reason why some philosophies say we are "part of a grander whole" or "part of one".... once you stop seeing ourselves, our minds, separate from "the universe".

I like this line of thinking, but I am still someone who prefers science, reason, and logic. But for the part of my very human mind that craves to believe in something greater than self, to belong to something greater, such ideas give it something to chew on for awhile, to keep it occupied. Else it's like a misbehaved child, and just wants to wreck shit up to see how much of a mess it can make before the adult threatens to take away all the fun toys.

 

[Paratus]

Space very likely expanded faster than the speed of light during the Inflationary period right after the Big Bang.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflationary_epoch

The observable universe is in fact 91 billion light years despite only being 13.7billion years old due to the continuing expansion of space.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe

 

[Paratus]

I like this cat picture:

He looks like he's trying to figure out the puzzle as well.

 

[Humpy]

This made me chuckle for a good 90 seconds.

 

[disappoint]

Has it been confirmed that quantum entanglement operates instantaneously across space-time? If one particle changes its spin would the other particle, perhaps millions of light years away, instantly change its spin to correspond? Spooky action at a distance has been confirmed, right? But no one knows *how* this happens?

I wouldn't say no one knows how this happens. Let's try an analogy.

Suppose I have 2 matching shoes. One is the right shoe and the other is the left shoe. I put them into 2 boxes and close the lids. Then we shuffle the boxes. We send one box to some planet 1 billion light years away.

Here on Earth I open one of the boxes. It's the left shoe. Instantly i know that the box 1 billion light years away has the right shoe. How did that happen? Magic!

 

[DrPizza]

I wouldn't say no one knows how this happens. Let's try an analogy.

Suppose I have 2 matching shoes. One is the right shoe and the other is the left shoe. I put them into 2 boxes and close the lids. Then we shuffle the boxes. We send one box to some planet 1 billion light years away.

Here on Earth I open one of the boxes. It's the left shoe. Instantly i know that the box 1 billion light years away has the right shoe. How did that happen? Magic!

Except, the shoe in your box is some sort of ambiguous shoe that doesn't decide to be left or right until you open the box.

 

[Chiropteran]

Except, the shoe in your box is some sort of ambiguous shoe that doesn't decide to be left or right until you open the box.

Yeah, except nobody has ever been able to show that in a simple and clear way that layman can understand.

How do you *know* it's an ambiguous shoe? You can't have looked at it and seen that it's a a quantum mess, because the act of looking at it would have collapsed it into one of two possibilities.

Yes, the double slit experiment is interesting, and explains some quantum stuff in a way I can understand, but it is *not* about quantum entanglement.

 

[Phokus]

He looks like he's trying to figure out the puzzle as well.

He looks like he's a tweaker lmao

 

[disappoint]

Except, the shoe in your box is some sort of ambiguous shoe that doesn't decide to be left or right until you open the box.

It's a shoe. It doesn't decide anything. Ever.

I know some well intentioned physicists say things like "It's almost as if the electron knows you're looking at it and then decides to collapse the wave function! Weird! Spooky!" When they talk about the double slit experiment, but we all know that's not what's really happening. Right? Well, maybe not all of us...

Whispers the imgur chant: "One of us...one of us...one of us..."