Let's Discuss An Observers Affect On Atoms

I cannot remember which thread it is where it was discussed that an observer can affect tiny particles of matter just by observing them.

Let us discuss this in full then.


If this theory is truly accurate....then it would stand to reason that brain waves produce energy for various outcomes....would it not?
Would it not also be true that people's thoughts on anything have varying affects?

I feel I am constantly fighting some people's bad energy on the internet off of me....
Would this also stand to reason.....that thinking about anything affects outcomes....

Do you believe in the power of brain waves and the affect it has on other things?

 

In quantum mechanics, "observation" is synonymous with quantum measurement and "observer" with a measurement apparatus and "observable" with what can be measured.

Based on the definitions above, it would not.

 

Thank you for answering, G. I was hoping you would.

I like to hear clear, logical thinking......as it is comforting.

I wish whoever said that to me would step up here and explain, and I cannot remember who that was....as I was also going to say in quantum physics...that is being observed....how would an observer know that what the particles are doing is not what they were going to be doing all along.....you cannot make a case of between observing something or not.

 

Hi Guys
I dont Know the Answer !
Infact I dont Even Understand The Frigging Question


Only came here to say I like Your New Avatar Picture Moonglow

 

LOL Thanks, Mally...

I have often heard from other people that an observer of something can affect the outcome of what they are observing.....so that is what this thread is about. It is a theory, and i don't know what this thread is about either....

 

The simple explanation is that whether our universe is unified or diverse, random or fated, etc. remains an enigma because we appear to inhabit and create our own paradox of existence. Hence, the observers effect on quanta can be described as metaphorical rather than metaphysical. For example, quantum mechanics are formulated on the assumption of infinite Hilbert spaces or universes, yet, the mathematics also suggest its as easy for quanta to go backwards in time as forwards because what we are observing is not causal and space and time themselves are being conflated. The more extreme the juxtapositions of space and time, such as a black hole appearing to have no surface, the more context dependent anything becomes for its identity. We appear to influence tiny quanta because its impossible to ever ultimately identify anything and quanta have so few properties to begin with they are harder to distinguish from their context, which is also the same reason its impossible to pop your own bubble.

A paradox of existence means the smallest pond can be the busiest place that can shed light upon the big picture because one without the other is simply a contradiction. A particle without a wave is simply a contradiction in terms because the two define another. A perfect vacuum is impossible, the speed of light, etc. because metaphysical extremes are always excluded as is our universe being either merely physical or mental.

 

You are probably talking about my posts as I have argued this for many years as I have been working on my phenomenalist philosophy, Archephenomenalism. Phenomenalism is an area of philosophy that is based on the concept that we only experience the phenomena of reality, not reality in itself. This could range from Kant who said that because we can only experience phenomena, we cannot know physical things as they truly are, to Berkeley who said that nothing exists but perception and therefore, mind.

My philosophy is a response to the Post-Modern Crisis, and is a philosophy of a holographic universe. More and more scientists are coming to the holographic model, because that model resolves the differences between classical science, quantum mechanics, and Einstein's theories of Relativity. Many of these scientists fail to realize the implications of what they are saying-----but in a world where philosophy is dead, and hasn't kept up with the developments in physics (according to Hawking and Mlodinow), how could we expect scientists to realize anything beyond the material side of what they are dealing with. Archephenomenalism therefore puts that into perspective.

Now to your questions----

The possibility of the observer affecting particles is exactly what kicked off Quantum Mechanics. It began with the double slit experiment several hundred years ago---a scientist was studying light and ran it through two finely cut slits and onto a screen. The result was not a reflection of the slits, but what we call an interference pattern. Therefore he concluded that light was a wave. Science was fine with that until quite a few years later when it began to deal with the photoelectric effect---that light can cause atoms to give off an electron. The math suggested that light had to be a particle, and decided to redo the double slit experiment, only this time to measure particles going through the slits. However, when they did so, instead of getting the interference pattern, they surprisingly got a reflection of the slits, which is what you would expect if you were measuring particles rather than waves. When you measure you have slits, when you don't measure particles you have an interference pattern.

So now scientists realized that light (and experiments show that every particle, subatomic particle, atom, and molecule does the same thing----basically every quanta) acts as both a wave and a particle. Heisenberg then developed his Uncertainty Principle which states that we cannot know both momentum and position of a quantum---in other words particles are either in motion as a wave, or have a position as a particle, and we can only know position or momentum.

The initial reaction was that an observer is required to determine reality----and this is a very scary propostion to scientists who have dogmatically prefered a material universe since the 1700's. But the problem is, no matter how many times they redo this experiment, or alter its measurements, or try to create different results----it is still the same. In fact it got worst----when they tried to take the conscious observer out of the experiment altogether, nothing happened even when we believe an observation took place. Then there is the Wheeler Delayed Observation version which demonstrates that it does not even matter when the observation takes place----it could be at the slits, before the slits, or even many light years after the slits, and as soon as the observation happens, we get a slit pattern rather than an interference pattern (leading some scientists to believe that we are actually changing the past by our observations---I disagree, and archephenomenalism has an answer to that).

Now here is the problem----no one has actually 'observed' a photon. A photon is a zero-mass particle moving at the speed of time. Because it is zero-mass, it is more of a ghost, esepecially in terms of size. It can fit into 1 Planck Space, which is 100 quintillion times smaller than the diameter of a proton. So we are not literally 'observing' a photon. But we do have conscious awareness of a reality that photon fits into, and it is that reality that we are shaping.

We have had some hot debates over this for probably close to 10 years that I have posted on this. But while we have gone back and forth on this----scientists have opened a new can of worms (at least a can of worms for those who believe in the materialist version of reality). They have now deomonstrated the Quantum Zeno Effect-----in other words that observation can slow down or stop atomic movement.

The problem is, science has no real way of explaining this. Scientists and many hipforum members explain it as the result of the mechanics of the measurement. The argument is that if you bombard a particle with another particle to measure it, it will change the quantum state of that particle. I think since about the 1970's Quantum Mechanics has been using decoherence to explain this. The idea here is that quanta as waves, are moving in a coherent manner through the universe, until there is an interaction between two quantum--a decoherent event--which causes them to both have a position, and suddenly collapse into particles. If all of physical reality is dependent on their being physical particles, then all of reality manifests through decoherent events.

They therefore argue that the measurement itself creates decoherence. But they fail to realize, as I point out, that all of physicality is a decoherent event. Therefore the very first double slit experiment should not have resulted in an interference pattern, but only the reflection of the double slits. This is why: there was decoherence as it went through the experiment with such things as molecules of air and any particles between. There is decoherence at the end of the experiment when that light is absorbed into the atoms of the screen---and remember, the Wheeler Delayed Observation experiment demonstrates that neither time nor distance is relevant to the observation----so the decoherence of the measurement is the same as any other decoherence. Furthermore, I point out that because every bit of material reality is decoherent-dependent, that light always becomes a particle before we can perceive it anyway. Therefore we aren't even percieving whether it is actually a particle or a wave------we are perceiving the phenomena it generates, and whether that reflects a particle or wave.

SO do I believe that our thoughts can alter reality?

Yes, and in fact, we do not even need to argue Quantum Mechanics till we are blue in the face to see this. There are extensive experiments done at MIT that are well documented that demonstrate very significantly that volition or intention can shape reality. (There is a book on this with all the details to recreate the experiments yourself in a lab----I am not at home and can't think of the title off hand.) Researchers did such things as change the .ph of water, affected the growth of larva, affected the coagulation of human blood, and so forth.

I think that brain waves are the physical phenomena produced from something deeper. SO I would answer that brain waves do not actually change anything, but they are the physical manifestation of how that change happens, in other words----they are the physical phenomena of something much deeper.

Our emotions, feelings, what we think, all of this affects the reality around us. This is the power of faith. We can do anything if we can believe in it-----but that is the catch----how to actually believe. And then, how to believe strong enough to counteract the beliefs of others and the decoherent nature of the universe itself.

The universe has its own path too----the flow of nature, the Tao, if you will. This is decoherence as it happens naturally. Reality does not need a conscious sentient observer to exist. each quantum wave carries quantum information----which is what determines when, where, and how a particle will manifest. We apparently can alter that quantum information, but left to its own, reality happens according to the flow of nature.

I posit that this Quantum Information is another aspect of Mind. The implication is that every quantum has a purpose and meaning---an intentional object. I recently posted a new thread in the Philosophy section about the Quantum Argument for Essentialism which explores this------it is an unedited and raw version, I have a version that may be a little more clear and easier to understand, but you can read that or wait until I post the other one.

But it also explores that even when we are talking about waves, that is really a misnomer for the superpositioned reality of Quantum Mechanics.

 

So basically, it boils down to if brain waves are real energy or not, and if everything is written in the stars or it is a beautiful, unpredictable ballet full of surprises, which I tend to like that theory better....i guess these are the questions that have always been.
I guess with simple logic, if a child knows you are watching them, as my neighbor's children did a week ago, they will put on shows......posture, etc......so me watching them affected what they did, but they were also aware of me watching them, or whoever was watching them, too.....so it went both ways.

 

Finnish researchers recently sorted electrons according to their charges without expending any energy in the process. Its as if they waved a magic wand over an otherwise extremely humble and plain nano scale copper transistor and box and shouted "Abracadabra" creating their own autonomous version of Maxwell's Demon. When energy can be converted into information and vice versa what you choose to call it simply depends upon the observer.

 

I conducted my own experiments in my teens. I would happen upon someone sleeping, and would stare at their hand or something, and then they would move the hand I was watching almost immediately.....I got scared, and said....no, thanks. I don't want my brain waves to have that much power..... I stopped doing that, and went about my own business in life.....
interference is not always a good thing....and you can feel energy...and if it is good or bad......Do you feel at peace? Is the energy flowing peacefully inside of you?....etc....Is something blocking or interfering with something .....and on and on.

Which is also why I like to watch television....Me watching something already pre recorded will not affect any outcomes. It is safe.

 

Just did it again. I happened to look over at one of my sleeping pugs lost in my own thoughts and her entire body jerked. Ok, I will not disturb you any longer.

 

This can be a lot of fun or at least interesting. Can be a great time on a psychedelic. Wouldn't want it to become terrorizing. Worrying what your thoughts are going to influence.

 

Murphy was an optimist because the minute you think you grasp quantum mechanics you are wrong.

 

Yes, hence this is why i like quantum particles. they have a mind of their own and they will fool you if you watch.....LOL!

 

Let me clarify my above statement......
Would you trust anyone with a blue print of the universe?
They could destroy it then.
It is nature's safety valve.......

these tiny particles...and that is my belief.

 

When I lived with My ex Wife we had a Ball of String Light Shade in the living Room !
Kind of Like They glue string Round and Round a Balloon and then Pop it You are Left with a Hollow Ball of String
One night I got Back From the Pub and she was Upset So I asked " whats up " ?
She said " watch This " and stared at the light shade ! it started to slowly spin round
I fucking Shit Myself !!
Next Day I took it down and Threw it in a Skip We never spoke about it ever again

 

I don't know what that means, Mally, but could it have been the energy of the light if the lamp was on? if not.....air currents.....?

When the people, who used to live here, showed up last week to look around and I asked them about ghosts....They said no, no ghosts...but once, during an electrical storm, a fire ball came bouncing down the stairs from the attic and went right passed all of them and right out the window...really? What is that?

 

I tell people its impossible to pop your own bubble much less God's.

 

I am popping my own! I DON'T CARE ANYMORE!!!!!

 

That's along the lines of saying you can tickle your own fancy and, if so, more power to you!