Trajk Logik

This makes me wonder about Schrodinger's Cat. I mean, isn't the cat in the box an observer? What difference would it make if we took the cat out of the box and simply wondered if the if the atomic particle decayed or not? Actually, putting the cat in the box, puts two observers in the box, so if we eliminate the cat then we'd still have a detector detecting if there were radiation in the box. Doesn't Schrodinger's thought-experiment make more sense if we eliminated the detector and the cat, and we only had the radioactive particle in the box and wondered whether it decayed or not? If there are already detectors and observers (the cat) inside the box, then the state of whether the cat is dead or alive is determined before any human looks in the box. Therefore the cat is actually alive or dead, not both, and it isn't our observation that determines the state of the cat.

I've been reading up on some QM lately and one of the things that gets my mind tied in knots is the how the measurement of an electron affects it's path in the double-slit experiment. Isn't our own observation with our own eyes, which uses light in the environment, a form of measurement? If some detector placed within the experiment affects the path of the electron, then how does our own measurements with our own senses, which can be thought of being detectors, affect the path of the electron? We use reflected light as a source of information about the world. Does this light in the environment interact with the electrons in any way? If our own observation with our eyes, that uses light, collapses the wave function, then how does the light in the environment without any observer affect the path of the electron? I hope my question makes sense. Also, when it comes to "spooky action at a distance", physicists tell us that two particles can relay information instantaneously. How do we know that they are actually separate particles, and not one large particle if the measurement of one affects the other? I think that our minds tend to spread out space-time in such a way, and also creates arbitrary boundaries creating separate particles, or objects, that they seem like different things themselves. Does physics, and quantum mechanics specifically, take into account our own brains and sensory systems and how they may interfere, or skew, the results of any observation we make?

Thanks for the reply. I'll do some more research into dark flow and string theory. As for what can change the rate of expansion - I'm not sure. But then, what could cause the expansion of the Universe from a singularity? Our physical universe may be governed by a single basic energy structure - a basic substrate for all matter and all more complex forms of matter may have evolved from this basic energy structure. But it also seems possible that this structures may have also itself evolved from a more fundamental phenomena that is nested within its structure and that this phenomenon may have the potential to produce many different energy structures - each of which would produce different forms of matter that would have different physical laws. There may even be still more fundamental phenomena nested within this structure giving rise to the possibility of a nested set of fundamental energy structures.

I agree that it is undeniable that the universe is expanding. What I don't understand is why one would conclude that the universe has always been expanding. Could it not be possible that the universe is eternal and that the expansion is something that started happening recently? Could it be possible that some outside force may be pulling on the universe from the outside? Another idea is that maybe the big bang did happen but the universe hasn't been expanding at a constant rate. Think about a rip in your shirt, or a crack in your windshield and how they can go through spurts of expansion due to outside forces causing the crack or rip to become wider or longer. Maybe the universe is a rip or crack in some exotic medium? And how is it that the cosmic background radiation has been tied to the big bang as evidence supporting the big bang and not evidence of something else? I hope that these questions aren't to newbish. Thanks for any education that the more educated would be willing to impart.