Is there an absolute reality in the universe, independent of observation?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter morningstar
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Observed Reality
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the concept of absolute reality in the universe, particularly whether there exists an absolute sequence of events independent of observation. Participants explore the implications of modern physics on the notion of objective reality, addressing both theoretical and conceptual aspects.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question whether there is an absolute sequence of events in the universe, suggesting that if such a sequence exists, it may be unknowable.
  • Others argue that delayed observations are essential for understanding events, implying that "what is actually happening" must be inferred from data, which introduces uncertainty.
  • A participant notes that along a specific worldline, the sequence of events can be considered absolute, but this is limited to that context.
  • There is a discussion about the objectivity of spacetime in General Relativity (GR), with some asserting that spacetime is absolute while the slicing into space and time is observer-dependent.
  • One participant mentions that there are absolute truths regarding proper time and proper length along paths in spacetime, but questions the concept of "absolute topography."
  • Another participant references famous paradoxes in relativity, suggesting that they highlight the complexities of different observers perceiving events differently while still arriving at the same absolute truths.
  • One reply emphasizes the importance of causality, stating that if one event causes another, there exists an absolute sequence between those events, independent of observation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the existence and nature of absolute reality and sequences of events. There is no consensus on the definitions or implications of concepts like "absolute topography" or "objective reality," indicating ongoing debate and exploration of these ideas.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in defining terms such as "actual Objective Reality" and "absolute topography," suggesting that these concepts may fall outside the realm of physics due to their ambiguous nature.

morningstar
Messages
23
Reaction score
0
Is there an absolute sequence of events in the universe- independent of observation? It seems like so much emphasis is put on our delayed observations rather than what is actually happining in Reality. As I read through the forums, it almost seems as if people do not believe that there is an actual Objective Reality that is occurring in the universe- independent of any observor. Is that a proper ascertation of the state of modern physics?

I understand that clocks tick slower in certain spaces, but looking at space as a whole, does it not have an absolute topography, independent of the observor?

Plain language answers please.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
morningstar said:
Is there an absolute sequence of events in the universe- independent of observation?
If there is, we have no way of knowing it.

morningstar said:
It seems like so much emphasis is put on our delayed observations rather than what is actually happining in Reality.
How else can we observe what's happening in remote locations except through a delay?

morningstar said:
As I read through the forums, it almost seems as if people do not believe that there is an actual Objective Reality that is occurring in the universe- independent of any observor. Is that a proper ascertation of the state of modern physics?
Modern physics doesn't waste time on meaningless (undefinable) terms such as "actual Objective Reality".

morningstar said:
I understand that clocks tick slower in certain spaces, but looking at space as a whole, does it not have an absolute topography, independent of the observor?
It's simply a matter of not being able to come up with a consistent, coherent definition of things like "absolute topography" that leaves it out of the realm of physics.

morningstar said:
Plain language answers please.
You're welcome.
 
morningstar said:
Is there an absolute sequence of events in the universe- independent of observation?

It depends on what you mean by "sequence of events". Along a particular worldline (a timelike or null curve in spacetime), yes, the sequence of events is absolute, independent of observation. But that's the only sense in which there is an absolute sequence of events.

morningstar said:
It seems like so much emphasis is put on our delayed observations rather than what is actually happining in Reality.

That's because our delayed observations are our data; "what is actually happening in Reality" has to be constructed from the data, and that process introduces uncertainty (over and above the uncertainty in our measurement of the data). So it's good to keep the two separate, conceptually.

morningstar said:
As I read through the forums, it almost seems as if people do not believe that there is an actual Objective Reality that is occurring in the universe- independent of any observor. Is that a proper ascertation of the state of modern physics?

I don't think so. In GR, at any rate, spacetime is perfectly objective and absolute. But how you slice spacetime up into space and time is not. See below.

morningstar said:
I understand that clocks tick slower in certain spaces, but looking at space as a whole, does it not have an absolute topography, independent of the observor?

No. Spacetime does, but "space" does not, because "space" is observer-dependent; there are different ways to slice up spacetime into space and time, and these different ways lead to different "topographies" of space.
 
morningstar said:
As I read through the forums, it almost seems as if people do not believe that there is an actual Objective Reality that is occurring in the universe- independent of any observor. Is that a proper ascertation of the state of modern physics?
There are many invariants in modern physics, just not as many as in Newtonian physics.
 
morningstar said:
I understand that clocks tick slower in certain spaces, but looking at space as a whole, does it not have an absolute topography, independent of the observor?
There is an absolute truth about the proper time along any object's path through spacetime, i.e. the time that would be measured by a clock carried along with the object. And a bit more abstractly, there is an absolute truth about the proper length along a "spacelike" path--see here for the distinction between timelike paths (those that could be followed by objects moving slower than light), lightlike paths (those that could be followed by light), and spacelike paths.
 
There certainly are absolute truths that are independent of the methods and logic that different observers use to explain those truths. The famous paradoxes, the Twins paradox, the Ladder paradox, etc., are only paradoxes because it is hard to see how different observers can see events so differently but still arrive at the same absolute truth.

But "absolute topography"? -- That is another question.
 
morningstar said:
Is there an absolute sequence of events in the universe- independent of observation? It seems like so much emphasis is put on our delayed observations rather than what is actually happining in Reality. As I read through the forums, it almost seems as if people do not believe that there is an actual Objective Reality that is occurring in the universe- independent of any observor. Is that a proper ascertation of the state of modern physics?

Note the special case of 'causality'. If event A causes event B, there is an absolute sequence between events A and B, which is independent of any observer or observation.
 

Similar threads

High School Relativistic simultaneity and effects on time
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
819
Undergrad Does the past of an observer still actually exist in their "now"?
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
6K
Undergrad Observing Black Holes in Finite Time
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
High School Further Understanding Simultaneity Conventions
  • · Replies 51 ·
2
Replies
51
Views
5K
Undergrad What, exactly, are invariants?
  • · Replies 144 ·
5
Replies
144
Views
11K
Undergrad Falling Into a Black Hole: Time Dilation & Hawking Radiation
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
Graduate Paradoxes in relativity, and an absolute reality
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
5K
Undergrad How Do David and John Experience Proper Time Differently in Special Relativity?
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
6K
High School Uniform motion and time dilation - real or perspective based
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
High School Special relativity implies the space cannot be "closed"?
  • · Replies 50 ·
2
Replies
50
Views
4K