Geeklawyer hates to write two physics posts in as many days but this one was so good it had to be offered for your enlightenment. Physicist Paul Davies asserts the superficially bizarre argument that the Universe is at it is because we are in it as observers of it. By being around we affect the Universe in the past in such a way as to alter the laws of physics and which in turn allow us to be here … er, to change the laws of physics …
If you think this sounds like something needing God or a time machine you are wrong but it is so odd sounding you could be forgiven for not understanding too well. Even Geeklawyer was initially a little confused.
A fascinating persuasive read to be found here on Salon, Geeklawyer will definitely buy the book ‘The Cosmic Jackpot‘.
That phrase...
Erm, isn’t this like the Schroedinger’s cat thing or am I just completely misunderstanding?
No, you’re not - you’re partially understanding.
Schroedinger’s cat is a theoretical experiment that relates to the effects of observation on quantum events. And that is a key part of this new thesis. The other key part being that from the perspective of the underlying maths time is symmetric: there is no theoretical reason for example why the consequences of a wave function collapse shouldn’t propagate ‘backwards’ whatever (backwards means in this context). From a Heisenberg (i.e. Schroedinger) perspective the past is as uncertain as the future and affected the same way by observations.
None of this is controversial and it is well understood.
Davies controversial idea is to weld these ‘reverse changes’ into a theory where the actual laws of physics change as a consequence of observation, and this in turn allows life because constants then have the right value.
There are some interesting experments into retro-causaulity which could provide some empirical weight for this theoritcal postion. It would also provide a theoritical solution to Goldilocks problem.
From a philosopghical postion I would however question the perspectivism which seems to be at the core of this therom. I mean surley the laws must also have some effect the properties of how we (as the entities that view the universe) are constructed. This in tern would then presumbly alter the laws of physics according to Paul.
You get stuck into a bit of a feedback loop realy, although I like to imgagine this hoop more as a double helix.
Did you see the interesting articule in new scientist (about my level of scienctific understanding :smile:) about quantum Darwinism. Is see now quantum creationism…. although undoublty they will argue that god is the one who collaposes wave functions.
The anthropomorphic principle (or observer bias) is nothing new, although in my experience it’s found more in books about religion than physics. Not that I’ve bothered reading the linked article, you understand. I’m too busy working on the misanthropic principle.
Hence the suspicion that this is loony Christian physicists trying to carve a place for God. In my view they certainly aren’t, although I thought initially that they were. I find their arguments very interesting but lack the detailed physics to critique it.
I don’t think any of us need telling that you are a misanthrope, though you do have your bad points too.