🧵 U-bend universe theory?
Anonymous at Mon, 17 Mar 2025 00:13:40 UTC No. 16621250
I almost put this in /wsr/ but then realized this might be the better place for it.
I recall reading a theory some years ago that essentially goes like this: the universe used to exist as an infinite field of possible quantum states. But then it was "observed", as light interacted with an observer later on in time. (The paper also took care to explain that this observer could be humans, but was most likely a black hole, which has the same collapsing effect.) The universe then collapsed into a single state of actual matter.
It was referred to as a "U-bend" theory, I think, because of the way that the observer created itself via light traveling through space, like a big roundabout comeback.
But I've had the damndest luck with googling it because I keep getting results for either the political horseshoe theory or the "cosmic horseshoe" pair of galaxies. Can anyone help me out?
Anonymous at Mon, 17 Mar 2025 00:37:34 UTC No. 16621263
>>16621250
This treads into Forbidden Knowledge. Asking LLM's about it will issue alerts. Searching for it lights you up like a beacon.
Anonymous at Mon, 17 Mar 2025 01:07:35 UTC No. 16621282
>>16621263
I don't.... what's an LLM?
Anonymous at Mon, 17 Mar 2025 01:53:43 UTC No. 16621301
>>16621282
>what's an LLM?
/Sci/ might not be your board.
Anonymous at Mon, 17 Mar 2025 09:38:14 UTC No. 16621495
>>16621250
you know if you flip that thing around you'll have much better luck
Anonymous at Mon, 17 Mar 2025 17:54:59 UTC No. 16621766
>>16621301
I'm a physicist, not a programmer. But I appreciate that there's a term besides "AI", that's way too generic and these LLMs barely even qualify.
Anonymous at Mon, 17 Mar 2025 20:17:46 UTC No. 16621866
>>16621301
LLMs """""""research""""""" is pure anti-science lmao
There's literally nothing to back up anything aside from initial google paper
Anonymous at Mon, 17 Mar 2025 20:27:59 UTC No. 16621883
>>16621866
There is nothing wrong with investigating the behavior of extremely parameterized GLMs.
Just don't start thinking you rebuilt Jesus or anything like that.
Anonymous at Mon, 17 Mar 2025 21:54:54 UTC No. 16621954
>>16621250
>op doesn't know that any interaction is an observation
you got filtered pretty easily huh
Anonymous at Tue, 18 Mar 2025 16:08:31 UTC No. 16622442
>>16621954
I am describing the contents of the paper. I do not claim the paper is accurate, as I cannot find it. I wish to find it so I can review its contents.
I assume that the logic is that, since every other particle is also in a quantum state, every interaction is equally hypothetical.