As a physics student I'm very disturbed by the fact that the role of observation isn't coming into question in Quantum Mechanic classes. Quantum mechanics (and all modern physics) is seen just as a pragmatic tool for getting the right answer for the properties of some proposed problem, but every physicist just swallows the implications and the phylosofical aspects of that tool, just because "it gives the right answer'. The true is that nobody really knows how stuff works, we just barely know what the results we achieve in experiments may be.
Thanks for pointing this out. I have heard quite a few very learned scientists... people who spent over 10 years studying various fields of science and then went on to do research in their careers, for instance, and they say the same thing.... but, when it comes to things like pharmaceutical drugs... people say, it's backed up by science and science doesn't lie!!! Well, I always argue that science is based on observation and our interpretation of what we are observing... our interpretations are not always right, and there could be things going on that our perceptive ability does not allow us to detect.... so while there are some clear and relatively easy concepts that science demonstrates... it is really just an explanation that allows our minds to understand and communicate what is going on in terms of things like gravity, the behavior of light waves or cancer cells or whatever... but, there is so much we do not understand, really, as you say. And so when people are convinced that there is "science" to back up this that or the other thing... well, things tend to get skewed and if people only knew that the claim of "science" to back something up, may not make whatever claim is being made, all that much more of a fact than belief in God AND can be used to manipulate those who simply do not know, the same way religions have been used to manipulate people over the centuries.
But he helped me understand better just how tightly a man can cross his legs in public. I think a lack of muscle mass in the quadriceps is a big first step to serious clinching of the legs one on top of the other clear back to the hips.
Do anyone tried double double slit experiment? I mean two double slits placed one after another. And we observe the electron going through first double slit. Just because we observed, we collapsed the wave function for that electron. Now when same electron passes through second double slit without any observation will it act as wave or a particle?
they are trying to downplay and quantify something that they have no fundamental explanation for. Whether its to calm their intellect or appease the public, or maybe a bit of both. Reality is , observing these particles changes their behaviour . That is profound beyond any mortal reasoning.
We tend to think of observation from a voyeuristic point of view but at a scale so small where all the "spooky" quantum effects take place it isn't at all ; you participate in observation. I had it explained to me this way .. If there was, theoretically, a snail at the bottom of a childs ball pit you would have to dig around and make a path to find the snail. When you do, it will most likely stop moving or change direction. You'll have evidence of its existence but no way to see how it would have behaved before you disturbed it.
This is another frustrating version of handling this issue. It seems there is always a clear question not being addressed. Specifically: If it is the general "disturbance" of the setting of the experiment or phenomenon, rather than the perceptual input of, mental judgment of, and subsequent knowledge about it that acts upon the particle/wave, resulting in non-interference, then you can control for that, not by managing to observe without any theoretical disturbance, but by "non-observing it" and doing so with plenty of disturbance. Ie, if it collapses into non-interference without an observer, then that's an equally important data point. I assume this does happen. But some experimental results (such as the quantum eraser experiment) would seem to suggest that we might be able to find the point at which we get an interference pattern under conditions of non-observation occurring at a level of disturbance that is greater than that of a least-disturbing observer. If so, then that would seem to indicate that the act of conscious observation ("perceptual input of, mental judgment of, and subsequent knowledge about") by some entity is, itself, a material factor in causing the collapse of a probabilistic phenomenon into a definite instance phenomenon. I would think that trying to understand this distinction would be more important than it apparently is to most physicists and philosophers.
That's because they are clutching at straws on a subject that not even the experts fully understand. But it's effectively the same rules as a computer game. Other parts of the game exist in cyber space. but you can only see the part of the game you are currently up to. The rest of the game is there, in a state of flux until you the observer get to the part of the game that you personally are at..
Why are scientists so resistant to the notion that consciousness creates reality? Why are they so determined to defend the concept of an objectively "real" material universe (as you also seem to be doing)?
he said something that made me realize how consciousness doesn't originate in the mind (although I already knew it. just what he says makes it make sense.) he said "you con only become essentially aware of something if, one way or another, you run into it." But, essentially, that would mean any physical reaction (two things bumping into each other) could be interpreted as becoming more conscious and and chemical reactions and the Big Bang and the Big Bang after that and then the one after (it's theorized there's been more than one ours not being the first or whatever that means) and that's all becoming more conscious. I kinda went to far into and almost goes off into crazy land but all I'm getting at is that consciousness is reality. Which I've seen people already say this in the comments. Lol
***** Ah. You're delving into metaphysics- which is fine. You can believe what you want. There is a huge chasm between metaphysics and hard science for many. The world of science is sometimes highly indoctrinated, and it laughs at anything their clique tells them to laugh at. Interestingly, what you propose can be explained with the Simulation Hypothesis- something once laughable, but now plausible to some theoretical physicists.
Michael Travis Matthews Walls i get what you mean. Indoctrinated makes it sound like a conspiracy but yes, there's many things that are taboo in scienece for some reason. Like consciousness. Which don't make sense
Why not reverse the experiment? i.e. fire photos, one at a time from the bands, numerically proportional to band width, towards the slits, they might converge on one point. Most probably not. Yet with quantum physics anything seems possible.
Well if mere mental presence affects matter which is not part of our physical self, than It does prove that consciousness transcends our physical self. Which does not justify the idiocy of religious dogma, but it proves that people who want to say that we are nothing but organic matter, like Richard Dawkins really are just being stubborn and ignorant.
Is religious dogma inherently more idiotic than scientific dogma? Bad dogma is bad dogma. Bad science obscures the truth about the natural world. Bad religion obscures the truth about the supernatural. Religion and science have different areas of competence.
About what Wheeler says:He knew that the universe exploded out of an ETERNAL void and fact that void is eternal is insane.From that perspective crazy makes sense.
+Amir Iqbal To detect something, you need light to observe things, and photons carry energy, they bump into particles, changing some of their nature as a result. If not light, then you need other particles, like molecules of a gas, to be something for the thing you're trying to detect to BUMP against, in order to register some kind of data. That act of bumping is mechanical, and also changes the nature of the thing you're trying to detect. All observations are technically mechanical, your eyes see because photons are hitting the optic nerve cell endings in your retina, exciting the electrons in the cells, and the energy released sends signals to your brain, which then composes an image for you to interpret.
***** Sorry, I apologize for the lack of answers (or interest), my response will surely go far under your ego. I might consider returning to this conversation when I get an acquired taste of S&M or the like.
snillocgrom No surprise here: more ridiculous diversionary tactics because you can't answer the questions. That's all it's been from the start; your trying to present yourself as an expert, but you can't offer any legitimate responses. At least admit it to yourself, dude. Or ask one of your professors to explain DCQE to you, so you can at least attempt to engage in an informed conversation about it. Until then, I suggest you stop trying to present yourself as being knowledgeable on the subject. I agree with your decision to withdraw from the "conversation" - since you haven't had anything of value to offer. All you did from jump was tell me I was wrong and didn't understand the experiment, yet you never gave any further explanation as to why I was wrong. But the good thing is, you don't have to remain ridiculous, You can learn and grow, which I hope you will do. And if you don't know something, simply say "I don't know." That's a good place to start. No harm, no foul. All the best!
Can anyone with some quantum physics background answer this... Is it in principle true that EVERY conceivable act of observation or measurement disturbs the system being measured? Yes, I understand that the observer effect is especially significant at the quantum scale, and perhaps quantitatively insignificant at large scale, but in principle does the observer effect apply to every observation or measurement in the universe? Perhaps it's clearer to use the term "interaction", since every observation or measurement perhaps is an interaction between the observer and the observed system. And if true, is it obviously true that the observed system and the observer are disturbed by each other in their interaction?
What you all need is Dynamo, Criss Angel, Derren Brown and whomever Profound Magicians you can muster up and GET THEIR VERSION OF "QUANTUM MECHANICS" cause they are the ones who are using it EVERYDAY IN THEIR ACTS!!
The essential concept is not "observation", but rather (information) "registration". The misunderstanding here shows a primitive view that even respected professional scientists and philosophers hold. This is a matter to be dealt with in terms of information processing & cybernetics, as scientists in the future will know.
xxxYYZxxx But isn't that precisely what is at the heart of this question -- *is* it the case that it is "registration" and not "observation" that matters. On the one hand, we balk against the latter; how on earth *could* observation -- by which is normally meant observation by a "consciousness" -- matter? The idea that it could is especially weird if we have the traditional form of materialistic monism as an underlying worldview. But the fact is we haven't been able to shake observation out of the proceedings yet, so weird thought it may sound we can't discard it, not yet anyway. I don't know enough really to judge, but I suspect Alberts etc are hammering on an important problem and it will be interesting to see what breaks first, the problem or their hammer.
when observed (watched) we see dounle bar pattern ....when not observed (not watching) we see interfierance pattern BIG CONTRADICTION ......HOW CAN YOU SEE SOMETHING THAT YOUR NOT LOOKING AT
I have thought this myself. However, if you are a mother, you understand this very well. Children may behave one way around you, and a completely different way around their friends. When they do not know you are observing them, they can sometimes be completely different animals... it is shocking as a mother. At any rate, while this may not be the perfect analagy, it makes you think about how the act of observing is occuring. If the observer is a camera, recording the behavior, and the conscious mind is a certain distance away, then it may behave one way in front of the camera and another way in front of the conscious mind. I have not watched this particular video and do not remember the details of this thing (it's been sevral years and I only took a cursory look at this claim about observation then)... I have a tendency to go through the forums before watching a video... so maybe I will change my mind after I do some more digging... but, this is my first instinct response to your very valid point... without the interference of knowledge... I always like to have some kind of initial response to basic information, then dig and see where I land.
It is just like the Buddhist view on the nature of reality. The relative reality is always interdependent in it’s nature. The ultimate nature of reality, just as in quantum physics is empty of inherent existence. Shunyata. It’s just possibilities. Endless possibilities. Until you observe it. 😅
I can explain the double slit experiment. It's simple, u set up the censors etc which makes a circuit running around from the detectors at the slit and the screen, there's ur circuit. To complete the circuit the light travels the shortest distance from the slit to the screen. And there you have it. They travel the straightest path too the screen, because of your circuit. It doesn't change because your viewing it, it's because you created a circuit. Too easy. Next question please.
An observer is a conscious entity interacting with the world and drawing information from those interactions. It's the interaction of one particle and another that fundamentally causes the physical reality to "coalesce". Neither one of those particles has to be part of a system that's conscious. We simply call this phenomenon "the observer effect" in order to point out that we can't observe anything without interacting with it. QM just suggests that a particle that isn't interacting with anything else is actually in a superposition of varying probabilities. Once it interacts, whether it be at the behest of conscious creatures or simply a photon flying through space until it hits another piece of lifeless matter, it will "pick" one of those probabilities.
What are you replying to? I didn't comment in response to James Meritt. But to answer your question, the act of measurement is what changes the thing being measured. There is no way to measure something without disturbing it because it requires interaction. You're in a grocery store and are buying oranges. You place them on a scale to find out their mass. But you have now touched them (and scraped off some molecules), you have lowered them onto the scale from a certain height, which added kinetic energy to them through gravity, and that energy must go somewhere when they hit the scale. You have likewise affected the scale itself. This is true macroscopically and also on the scale of particles - the only way to get information about a thing is to somehow interact with it, and any interaction disturbs both parties of the interaction. In the case of quantum states, individual particles don't have a concrete state until they are forced to pick one when they come into contact. That's called the collapse of the probability wave function. That is why the observer effect exists. It's really an interaction effect and happens whether there is a conscious mind involved or not. In the analogy, an orange is changed by falling on a surface whether it's because you placed it on a scale or because it fell from a tree. It's only called the observer effect to convey the message of "you can't study things without disturbing them".
WOW....This is what i was looking for, thank-you Sir, u have broken it down in an analogy that i can understand. i was researching stuff about CERN, and they mentioned something similar, but the explanation was really weak in comparison to yours. I hope allot of people read your comment so they too can really grasp whats actually happening in our reality. Does this somehow tie into what the Mandella effect is?? or is that another question relating to the D'Wave machine which needs another answer too?? Once again Sam, thanks for taking time to explaining. Much appreciated.
But the observer effect includes just thinking about something, doesn't it? So does that mean thoughts are particles that somehow leave the brain to interact with other particles??
It is definitely a weird thing to think about. For instance with the many worlds idea, where different decisions and different actions create a different universe. Explained in some ways as an infinite amount of universes that exist simultaneously, or where new universes are created with each action you make. If the latter is the case, then that literally means that merely making an action breaks the laws of physics and creates who universes from nothing. Lol while this is nonsense in reality, it’s a cool way to describe magic in fiction. Like the marvel cinematic universe. Because that definitely sounds like magic even though it’s just “science”.
create a detector of dark matter. problem solved. conclusion: god is made of dark matter, because thats the only way it could observe us without affecting our free will. deep.
As a physics student I'm very disturbed by the fact that the role of observation isn't coming into question in Quantum Mechanic classes. Quantum mechanics (and all modern physics) is seen just as a pragmatic tool for getting the right answer for the properties of some proposed problem, but every physicist just swallows the implications and the phylosofical aspects of that tool, just because "it gives the right answer'. The true is that nobody really knows how stuff works, we just barely know what the results we achieve in experiments may be.
Thanks for pointing this out. I have heard quite a few very learned scientists... people who spent over 10 years studying various fields of science and then went on to do research in their careers, for instance, and they say the same thing.... but, when it comes to things like pharmaceutical drugs... people say, it's backed up by science and science doesn't lie!!! Well, I always argue that science is based on observation and our interpretation of what we are observing... our interpretations are not always right, and there could be things going on that our perceptive ability does not allow us to detect.... so while there are some clear and relatively easy concepts that science demonstrates... it is really just an explanation that allows our minds to understand and communicate what is going on in terms of things like gravity, the behavior of light waves or cancer cells or whatever... but, there is so much we do not understand, really, as you say. And so when people are convinced that there is "science" to back up this that or the other thing... well, things tend to get skewed and if people only knew that the claim of "science" to back something up, may not make whatever claim is being made, all that much more of a fact than belief in God AND can be used to manipulate those who simply do not know, the same way religions have been used to manipulate people over the centuries.
"phylosofical " xD
Shut up and calculate!
This guy takes the cake for speaking as long as you can without saying ANYTHING!
But he helped me understand better just how tightly a man can cross his legs in public. I think a lack of muscle mass in the quadriceps is a big first step to serious clinching of the legs one on top of the other clear back to the hips.
Do anyone tried double double slit experiment? I mean two double slits placed one after another. And we observe the electron going through first double slit. Just because we observed, we collapsed the wave function for that electron. Now when same electron passes through second double slit without any observation will it act as wave or a particle?
How small does the observer have to be to collapse the probability wave? can a bug do it? or a virus?
It is the same with people, people act differently when observed.
Entirely different.
they are trying to downplay and quantify something that they have no fundamental explanation for. Whether its to calm their intellect or appease the public, or maybe a bit of both. Reality is , observing these particles changes their behaviour . That is profound beyond any mortal reasoning.
They also have no explanation why and how the void that the universe exploded out of at the time of the big bang never ends.
We tend to think of observation from a voyeuristic point of view but at a scale so small where all the "spooky" quantum effects take place it isn't at all ; you participate in observation. I had it explained to me this way .. If there was, theoretically, a snail at the bottom of a childs ball pit you would have to dig around and make a path to find the snail. When you do, it will most likely stop moving or change direction. You'll have evidence of its existence but no way to see how it would have behaved before you disturbed it.
If you are reading these comments while watching this vid do yourself a favor and move on before you waste 4 minutes of your life.
This is another frustrating version of handling this issue. It seems there is always a clear question not being addressed. Specifically: If it is the general "disturbance" of the setting of the experiment or phenomenon, rather than the perceptual input of, mental judgment of, and subsequent knowledge about it that acts upon the particle/wave, resulting in non-interference, then you can control for that, not by managing to observe without any theoretical disturbance, but by "non-observing it" and doing so with plenty of disturbance. Ie, if it collapses into non-interference without an observer, then that's an equally important data point. I assume this does happen.
But some experimental results (such as the quantum eraser experiment) would seem to suggest that we might be able to find the point at which we get an interference pattern under conditions of non-observation occurring at a level of disturbance that is greater than that of a least-disturbing observer. If so, then that would seem to indicate that the act of conscious observation ("perceptual input of, mental judgment of, and subsequent knowledge about") by some entity is, itself, a material factor in causing the collapse of a probabilistic phenomenon into a definite instance phenomenon. I would think that trying to understand this distinction would be more important than it apparently is to most physicists and philosophers.
That's because they are clutching at straws on a subject that not even the experts fully understand. But it's effectively the same rules as a computer game. Other parts of the game exist in cyber space. but you can only see the part of the game you are currently up to.
The rest of the game is there, in a state of flux until you the observer get to the part of the game that you personally are at..
Why are scientists so resistant to the notion that consciousness creates reality? Why are they so determined to defend the concept of an objectively "real" material universe (as you also seem to be doing)?
Because it’s the most realistic explanation
We can’t see any causational effect of consciousness creating reality
*Says consciousness..😂
They don't know what they are talking about. Doing the experiment with entangled pairs proves the observer effect is not caused by interference.
he said something that made me realize how consciousness doesn't originate in the mind (although I already knew it. just what he says makes it make sense.) he said "you con only become essentially aware of something if, one way or another, you run into it." But, essentially, that would mean any physical reaction (two things bumping into each other) could be interpreted as becoming more conscious and and chemical reactions and the Big Bang and the Big Bang after that and then the one after (it's theorized there's been more than one ours not being the first or whatever that means) and that's all becoming more conscious. I kinda went to far into and almost goes off into crazy land but all I'm getting at is that consciousness is reality. Which I've seen people already say this in the comments. Lol
+Aaron Rainbolt You're assuming every physical thing has consciousness (self awareness).
Michael Travis Matthews Walls no I'm not. I'm saying that everything IS consciousness and i giess contributes to it.
djancak lmao thanks for showing yourself to be too dense to comverse with. Lol
***** Ah. You're delving into metaphysics- which is fine. You can believe what you want. There is a huge chasm between metaphysics and hard science for many. The world of science is sometimes highly indoctrinated, and it laughs at anything their clique tells them to laugh at. Interestingly, what you propose can be explained with the Simulation Hypothesis- something once laughable, but now plausible to some theoretical physicists.
Michael Travis Matthews Walls i get what you mean. Indoctrinated makes it sound like a conspiracy but yes, there's many things that are taboo in scienece for some reason. Like consciousness. Which don't make sense
"observation is an irreducibly violent process"
Why not reverse the experiment? i.e. fire photos, one at a time from the bands, numerically proportional to band width, towards the slits, they might converge on one point. Most probably not. Yet with quantum physics anything seems possible.
What??
This is really more of monotonous monologue.
These guys don’t even talk about the observer effect this video is very misleading.
Tried to catch that joke at the end over 5 times now, failed miserably. I feel dumb now.
+djancak it does.
Irreducibly violent process
Well if mere mental presence affects matter which is not part of our physical self, than It does prove that consciousness transcends our physical self. Which does not justify the idiocy of religious dogma, but it proves that people who want to say that we are nothing but organic matter, like Richard Dawkins really are just being stubborn and ignorant.
Is religious dogma inherently more idiotic than scientific dogma? Bad dogma is bad dogma. Bad science obscures the truth about the natural world. Bad religion obscures the truth about the supernatural. Religion and science have different areas of competence.
About what Wheeler says:He knew that the universe exploded out of an ETERNAL void and fact that void is eternal is insane.From that perspective crazy makes sense.
The presence of the measuring device (hence observer) is purely mechanical?
+Amir Iqbal To detect something, you need light to observe things, and photons carry energy, they bump into particles, changing some of their nature as a result. If not light, then you need other particles, like molecules of a gas, to be something for the thing you're trying to detect to BUMP against, in order to register some kind of data. That act of bumping is mechanical, and also changes the nature of the thing you're trying to detect. All observations are technically mechanical, your eyes see because photons are hitting the optic nerve cell endings in your retina, exciting the electrons in the cells, and the energy released sends signals to your brain, which then composes an image for you to interpret.
***** Sorry, I apologize for the lack of answers (or interest), my response will surely go far under your ego. I might consider returning to this conversation when I get an acquired taste of S&M or the like.
snillocgrom No surprise here: more ridiculous diversionary tactics because you can't answer the questions. That's all it's been from the start; your trying to present yourself as an expert, but you can't offer any legitimate responses.
At least admit it to yourself, dude. Or ask one of your professors to explain DCQE to you, so you can at least attempt to engage in an informed conversation about it. Until then, I suggest you stop trying to present yourself as being knowledgeable on the subject.
I agree with your decision to withdraw from the "conversation" - since you haven't had anything of value to offer. All you did from jump was tell me I was wrong and didn't understand the experiment, yet you never gave any further explanation as to why I was wrong.
But the good thing is, you don't have to remain ridiculous, You can learn and grow, which I hope you will do. And if you don't know something, simply say "I don't know." That's a good place to start. No harm, no foul. All the best!
If I stop observing this bla bla bla guy.....will he go away?
Can anyone with some quantum physics background answer this... Is it in principle true that EVERY conceivable act of observation or measurement disturbs the system being measured? Yes, I understand that the observer effect is especially significant at the quantum scale, and perhaps quantitatively insignificant at large scale, but in principle does the observer effect apply to every observation or measurement in the universe?
Perhaps it's clearer to use the term "interaction", since every observation or measurement perhaps is an interaction between the observer and the observed system.
And if true, is it obviously true that the observed system and the observer are disturbed by each other in their interaction?
Huh
What you all need is Dynamo, Criss Angel, Derren Brown and whomever Profound Magicians you can muster up and GET THEIR VERSION OF "QUANTUM MECHANICS" cause they are the ones who are using it EVERYDAY IN THEIR ACTS!!
The essential concept is not "observation", but rather (information) "registration". The misunderstanding here shows a primitive view that even respected professional scientists and philosophers hold. This is a matter to be dealt with in terms of information processing & cybernetics, as scientists in the future will know.
xxxYYZxxx But isn't that precisely what is at the heart of this question -- *is* it the case that it is "registration" and not "observation" that matters. On the one hand, we balk against the latter; how on earth *could* observation -- by which is normally meant observation by a "consciousness" -- matter? The idea that it could is especially weird if we have the traditional form of materialistic monism as an underlying worldview. But the fact is we haven't been able to shake observation out of the proceedings yet, so weird thought it may sound we can't discard it, not yet anyway. I don't know enough really to judge, but I suspect Alberts etc are hammering on an important problem and it will be interesting to see what breaks first, the problem or their hammer.
nice metaphor about life is kinda like bumping into a table
when observed (watched) we see dounle bar pattern ....when not observed (not watching) we see interfierance pattern
BIG CONTRADICTION ......HOW CAN YOU SEE SOMETHING THAT YOUR NOT LOOKING AT
I have thought this myself. However, if you are a mother, you understand this very well. Children may behave one way around you, and a completely different way around their friends. When they do not know you are observing them, they can sometimes be completely different animals... it is shocking as a mother. At any rate, while this may not be the perfect analagy, it makes you think about how the act of observing is occuring. If the observer is a camera, recording the behavior, and the conscious mind is a certain distance away, then it may behave one way in front of the camera and another way in front of the conscious mind. I have not watched this particular video and do not remember the details of this thing (it's been sevral years and I only took a cursory look at this claim about observation then)... I have a tendency to go through the forums before watching a video... so maybe I will change my mind after I do some more digging... but, this is my first instinct response to your very valid point... without the interference of knowledge... I always like to have some kind of initial response to basic information, then dig and see where I land.
Use a energy sensitive receptor, more like xray film if not observe.
The universe can be observed from outside the universe by realising our identity with the observer of our dreams.
It is just like the Buddhist view on the nature of reality. The relative reality is always interdependent in it’s nature. The ultimate nature of reality, just as in quantum physics is empty of inherent existence. Shunyata. It’s just possibilities. Endless possibilities. Until you observe it. 😅
I can explain the double slit experiment.
It's simple, u set up the censors etc which makes a circuit running around from the detectors at the slit and the screen, there's ur circuit. To complete the circuit the light travels the shortest distance from the slit to the screen. And there you have it. They travel the straightest path too the screen, because of your circuit.
It doesn't change because your viewing it, it's because you created a circuit.
Too easy.
Next question please.
What is an Observer? a rock? A blade of Grass? A spider? A dog? A Human? A God?
An observer is a conscious entity interacting with the world and drawing information from those interactions.
It's the interaction of one particle and another that fundamentally causes the physical reality to "coalesce". Neither one of those particles has to be part of a system that's conscious. We simply call this phenomenon "the observer effect" in order to point out that we can't observe anything without interacting with it.
QM just suggests that a particle that isn't interacting with anything else is actually in a superposition of varying probabilities. Once it interacts, whether it be at the behest of conscious creatures or simply a photon flying through space until it hits another piece of lifeless matter, it will "pick" one of those probabilities.
What are you replying to? I didn't comment in response to James Meritt. But to answer your question, the act of measurement is what changes the thing being measured. There is no way to measure something without disturbing it because it requires interaction.
You're in a grocery store and are buying oranges. You place them on a scale to find out their mass. But you have now touched them (and scraped off some molecules), you have lowered them onto the scale from a certain height, which added kinetic energy to them through gravity, and that energy must go somewhere when they hit the scale. You have likewise affected the scale itself. This is true macroscopically and also on the scale of particles - the only way to get information about a thing is to somehow interact with it, and any interaction disturbs both parties of the interaction. In the case of quantum states, individual particles don't have a concrete state until they are forced to pick one when they come into contact. That's called the collapse of the probability wave function.
That is why the observer effect exists. It's really an interaction effect and happens whether there is a conscious mind involved or not. In the analogy, an orange is changed by falling on a surface whether it's because you placed it on a scale or because it fell from a tree. It's only called the observer effect to convey the message of "you can't study things without disturbing them".
WOW....This is what i was looking for, thank-you Sir, u have broken it down in an analogy that i can understand. i was researching stuff about CERN, and they mentioned something similar, but the explanation was really weak in comparison to yours. I hope allot of people read your comment so they too can really grasp whats actually happening in our reality. Does this somehow tie into what the Mandella effect is?? or is that another question relating to the D'Wave machine which needs another answer too?? Once again Sam, thanks for taking time to explaining. Much appreciated.
James Meritt we are the observer. .. our mind create our world.
But the observer effect includes just thinking about something, doesn't it? So does that mean thoughts are particles that somehow leave the brain to interact with other particles??
It is definitely a weird thing to think about. For instance with the many worlds idea, where different decisions and different actions create a different universe. Explained in some ways as an infinite amount of universes that exist simultaneously, or where new universes are created with each action you make. If the latter is the case, then that literally means that merely making an action breaks the laws of physics and creates who universes from nothing. Lol while this is nonsense in reality, it’s a cool way to describe magic in fiction. Like the marvel cinematic universe. Because that definitely sounds like magic even though it’s just “science”.
create a detector of dark matter. problem solved. conclusion: god is made of dark matter, because thats the only way it could observe us without affecting our free will. deep.
I got here from cinemasins
Terrible video. Blathering
What this guy is saying, has been proven false.
what nonsense is that? I don't totally agree here