High School Who was the observer for the first 10 billion years?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the philosophical implications of observation in quantum mechanics and cosmology, specifically questioning the necessity of an observer in the context of the universe's age. Participants clarify that reality does not require a human observer, and the statement regarding particles lacking definite properties until measured pertains specifically to quantum mechanics. The conversation highlights the distinction between popular science interpretations and peer-reviewed scientific literature, emphasizing the importance of credible sources in scientific discussions.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of quantum mechanics principles
  • Familiarity with cosmology concepts
  • Knowledge of the role of observation in physics
  • Ability to differentiate between popular science and peer-reviewed literature
NEXT STEPS
  • Study quantum mechanics textbooks to grasp foundational concepts
  • Research the implications of observation in quantum theory
  • Examine peer-reviewed articles on cosmology and the universe's age
  • Explore the philosophical debates surrounding the observer effect in physics
USEFUL FOR

Students of physics, philosophers of science, and anyone interested in the foundational questions of reality and observation in quantum mechanics and cosmology.

newrd
Messages
11
Reaction score
1
If reality requires an observer, and life on Earth is only 3.8 billion years old- yet the universe is 13.8 billion years old, who was the observer for the first 10 billion years?
 
Space news on Phys.org
Reality does not require an observer.
 
So when we say "A particle has neither a definite position nor a definite velocity unless and until those quantities are measured by an observer" it doesn't mean for reality in general- just specific particles?
 
newrd said:
So when we say

In the words of Tonto, "What you mean we?" I have never said such a thing, because it's not correct. A human observer is not required.
 
Vanadium 50 said:
In the words of Tonto, "What you mean we?" I have never said such a thing, because it's not correct. A human observer is not required.
Ahh ok, I got the quote from a Stephen Hawking book, I thought it may just be the generally agreed upon stance?
 
Vanadium 50 said:
In the words of Tonto, "What you mean we?" I have never said such a thing, because it's not correct. A human observer is not required.
Ohh yeah- and I never said human ;)
 
newrd said:
when we say "A particle has neither a definite position nor a definite velocity unless and until those quantities are measured by an observer"

Then we are talking about quantum mechanics, not cosmology, and you should spend some time actually learning QM from a textbook.

newrd said:
I got the quote from a Stephen Hawking book

Which, since I'm assuming it was a pop science book (because Hawking doesn't say anything like this in any actual peer-reviewed literature), is not an acceptable source when you want to discuss the actual science. Thread closed.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 43 ·
2
Replies
43
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 103 ·
4
Replies
103
Views
11K