NourFoundation
In response to a question from an audience member, philosopher of physics David Albert and physicist Neil Turok, discuss the problem of observation in quantum physics.
An excerpt from “The Origins of the Universe: Why Is There Something Rather than Nothing?” featuring Steve Paulson, Neil Turok, Jim Holt, and David Albert.
The New York Academy of Sciences
Tuesday, October 14, 2014
http://www.nourfoundation.com/the-origins-of-the-universe
Source
If I stop observing this bla bla bla guy…..will he go away?
'Scientists' trying to one up each other and making it up as they go along using big words that have no substance. Like how they stroke their own egos and name drop. Most of what is said is unoriginal and sounds very defeating and obscure. What is the point of this talk ? The only truth I've heard here is "people came up with all kinds of goofy quasi-mystical sounding attitudes' which this video helps to support. This is the best our higher educational institutions can do ? Seems most of higher education discussions are a regurgitation of other's ideas and jumping through mental hoops. Must be very frustrating trying to discuss something you know nothing about.
These guys don’t even talk about the observer effect this video is very misleading.
what if they put the observer at manny distances, like 1 meter and 2 and 3 and so on ultil like a 100 meter to see if that makes a difference, or try doing it in darkness or clarity, or try something out of the box like making a kid or a dog be the observer, just saying, i think this explains why Goku is so strong.
Since you don't believe in consciousness, let me slowly torture you to death – you won't suffer – you're nothing more than a glorified rock!
It is the same with people, people act differently when observed.
How small does the observer have to be to collapse the probability wave? can a bug do it? or a virus?
What this guy is saying, has been proven false.
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.
there is no evidence that it is purely mechanical NO EVIDENCE
Huh
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.
Irreducibly violent process
in a massaive multiplayer game the game changes when it is observed by a player. the universe is a simulation.
Listen to my theory and tell me if I am wrong….
what I think is that,
when wave interacts with quantum, then wave becomes matter.
So, now lets talk about the observer effect.
When we don't observe the electron, it acts like a wave, but when we observe, the photon emitted from the observer(just to explain) makes the wave act like particle …….
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.
I got here from cinemasins
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 don't know what they are talking about. Doing the experiment with entangled pairs proves the observer effect is not caused by interference.
Terrible video. Blathering
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
do you know why scientist are confused.. because they are unknown about the truth behind who is the actual observer is…they are just flowing outward
they are called Sylphs' they are air elementals or nature spirits , they are in the very air we breath , they control the clouds and clean the air as well as many more things , they are responsible for the incredible cloud formations you see and they have been here since the beginning of time ,they know everything , .When you see things change during an experiment it is the sylphs that can change the outcome , dont believe me ? just ask them , thats right , just ask them . .On a patchy cloudy day not overcast , sit outside with your camera and look up to the sky and stare , you should see tiny beads of silvery light zinging all around you , thaey are the sylphs they are separate but one like a collective consciousness . say out loud as if talking to someone in conversation , ask them to show you they are real ,by putting something in the clouds , like someone waving or a perfect shaped arrow then wait about 5-10 minutes and then start taking pictures of the clouds and you will see more hidden images looking thru your camera that with no camera , infrared spectrum comes in to effect for some strange reason . once you see your request in the clouds you will no longer be wondering why things are hard to experiment with . its all about intent. also dont forget to thank them after you ask . and btw they know whoyou are and if you have bad intent and or are one that is corrupting humanity they will not come to your request , they do not like unfriendly energy
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.
The universe can be observed from outside the universe by realising our identity with the observer of our dreams.
This guy takes the cake for speaking as long as you can without saying ANYTHING!
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.
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 is an Observer? a rock? A blade of Grass? A spider? A dog? A Human? A God?
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.
nice metaphor about life is kinda like bumping into a table
Here's an interesting new experiment confirming the observer effect in QM. http://www.anu.edu.au/news/all-news/experiment-confirms-quantum-theory-weirdness
"It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it," said Associate Professor Andrew Truscott from the ANU Research School of Physics and Engineering.
Perhaps the observer effect in QM is showing us how reality works, in general – not just at the quantum level, but at the macro level, as well. That's where the new digital physics/ virtual reality model is headed. Too soon to tell how accurate it is, but an interesting option to consider. http://brianwhitworth.com/BW-VRT1.pdf
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.
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
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.
Tried to catch that joke at the end over 5 times now, failed miserably. I feel dumb now.
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.
After searching for half an hour for how observation "creates" reality and finding zero proof even after watching a bunch of double-slit explanations, I finally hear some real scientists explain the misconception of the "observer effect". There's zero evidence or proof that someone standing in a room watching the double-slit experiment affects the results.
Consciousness creates reality, problem solved.