Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Is universe really observer dependent?

  1. Apr 16, 2010 #1
    Is universe observer dependent? Any thoughts.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 16, 2010 #2
    What you mean observer dependent?

    If you meant that does universe really need to be observed, then it's yes and also no but it depends what reason you got behind it.

    From my point of view it's yes, because by observing the universe ( stars, planets and moons) you go back in the past.

    Thus, at some point you can find the creation of the universe.

    But we haven't reached there yet, because it needs a very long time.

    Now, the scientist are confused when they reached the state inflation and can't move further and then they suggested that vacuum isn't vacuum at all, means it is not empty at all; it contain a something that can't be detected by the materials and technologies we got.

    Later, they called the invisible matter 'Dark Matter' and then they said it also contained an invisible force and more later they said it also contained Dark Flow.

    It has not yet been proved so don't stress yourself. It is only a theory for now. Scientists are currently making research for it.
     
  4. Apr 16, 2010 #3
    Do you have any thoughts on the subject?
     
  5. Apr 16, 2010 #4
    It is impossible to answer this question with a yes or no since the question it self depends on many variables. The universe itself is not observance dependent. It would have existed without us, since it shows all the signs of its own existence without depending anything human related. This is physically of course. If you think philosophically, you could say the universe did not exist for the Neanderthal man, since they did not observe it ( looking at the night sky does not count), therefore they did not know that it was there, so it did not matter. There could be a 97th dimension that we are not aware of, sitting 2 inches away from us, but since we can't detect it, to us it does not exist. But in its own, it does exist.
    On an other note, how the universe looks and what it offers is highly observant oriented since observable universe limited to the speed of light and the time passed since it started its travel. Therefore we cannot see or detect anything that is happening or happened outside our observable universe which is about 46-47 billion light years.
    You might say that this number is larger than the age of the Universe (13billion years) so everything that happened since the Big Bang should be visible to us, but then you wouldn't be taking the expansion of the universe in to consideration.

    Deepak, this is the second vague question I see from you. If you are looking for more specific responses with correct answers, I recommend to put a little more depth in your questions. Or they just look like ( also combining with you not attending the thread again) they have been asked to make others talk and argue while you watch from the sidelines. I expect the next thread to ask "What is the meaning of life?"
     
  6. Apr 17, 2010 #5
    @AndyK What you said are all true. Scientist observe the universe so that we find out the creation of the universe itself and the creation of Human beings.

    Andy, I would suggest you to watch Richard Hammonds Invisible worlds. it shows us the worlds that we can't see, that means things that our eyes can't capture, but they exist.
    It got 3 parts so download it and watch it. You can find it at:http://forums.mvgroup.org/
    You need to search for it manually, don't go in the search section you won't get it there to download. Also you need a bittorrent client to download it. Have fun watching.

    And yeah, the question was vague.We need more details about the question to give more accurate answers.
     
  7. Apr 17, 2010 #6

    Thanks for your suggestion.

    No, the next thread would have been 'Is Reality relative, if yes, to how much extent? (just a re-phrasing of what I have asked now). Just kidding.


    Do you mean to say that there are finite number of such dimensions?

    What if a dimension 'became alive physically/took birth' only when someone tried to detect it.

    Pardon the vagueness.:smile:
     
    Last edited: Apr 17, 2010
  8. Apr 17, 2010 #7
    I would say, we got an infinite number of dimensions because the universe is expanding continuously, but scientists had predicted that the expansion should have been slowed, but it's not happening and they suggested that the universe will expand infinitely. If the universe will expand infinitely then new dimensions will be created.

    Scientist are saying that the universe is expanding due to the dark matter and it is found in everywhere and anytime even on earth we have it but we can't detect it.

    They say that dark matter and dark energy can pass through any objects that we have on earth, so we can't detect it.:(
     
  9. Apr 17, 2010 #8
    What you mean by a dimension become alive or take birth?

    if there is a dimension, it will be always here. It's just that we can't detect it. A dimension won't take birth when you detect it. It is always here and will remain unless something happens to the space, which probably won't happen.

    If we detect another dimension that we currently don't know then it will be a great move towards science, Astronomy and Physics.( Physics is also part of science)

    Discovering a new dimension will always help us to understand the universe better and better.
    I'm waiting for scientist to discover to discover how to make portals or gates that can take us anywhere on the universe by using coordinates.:)
     
  10. Apr 17, 2010 #9
    What does an observer really constitute? A network of electrical impulses in a relative outside environment?
     
  11. Apr 18, 2010 #10
    How come nobody ever asks if observers are universe dependent???
     
  12. Apr 18, 2010 #11
    What you are stating is completely different that what I meant. I was trying to give an example of how undetected worlds, dimensions, particles, events etc... can be disregarded or acted upon as they do not exist since they have never been discovered. I never meant to say that there is a finite amount of these dimensions. It maybe finite it maybe infinite who knows?

    Your second argument, although sounds intriguing, is against how I think of the undiscovered dimensions. According to how I think, they are there already, they do not depend/rely on us, or our detection methods. It is up to us to figure them out or not. Them coming to life with observation of an observer, like you are saying needs more clarification on your part if you'd like to discuss it.
     
  13. Apr 18, 2010 #12
    In some schools of thought the universe and the observer are really inseparable. Quite a few physicists and philosophers were interested in the Indian philosophy Vedanta (e.g. Schrodinger, Wigner, Oppenheimer, Schopenhauer, Neitszche) which basically identifies the conscious observer with the universe, at least in some sense.

    The answer to the question really depends on your philosophical leanings - for a strict materialist the question may seem ridiculous, but for a Vedantist or pansychist etc it is ridiculous to think the universe could exist without an observer.
     
  14. Apr 18, 2010 #13
    Is the universe observer dependent?

    no---that ideology is similar in attitude to the pre-Copernican system
     
  15. Apr 18, 2010 #14
    If a tree falls in the forest with no one around does it make a noise??

    Do trees even fall when no one is around!!!!!!

    :rofl:
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Is universe really observer dependent?
  1. Observer? (Replies: 7)

Loading...