It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Quantum Theory Observer, some questions

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 12:08 AM
Trough this thread I want to get a better understanding of the observer, as defined in quantum theory. Since I have no education in this area, I want to ask fellow ATS'ers to help me out a bit.

From what I understand the oberserver is the one that measures the results. It doesn't require to be a concious being, a microscope or any other measurment instrument qualifies as an observer too. (am I correct so far?)

Observing requires some form of interaction an thus a waveform collapses to a particle as soon as the interaction is done... (still correct?)

From what I understand there are several reasosn why we can't perform "magic" with this principal. One of them being that the brain itself doesn't qualify as an interactive instrument to influence wave forms.

What I wonderd about this is the following. Our brain sends out tiny electric currents. How can this not influence the collapse of the particle?

Something else I've read, and again, please correct me if I'm wrong, is that influencing things on a quantum scale is not the same as influencing them on large scale. What I wondered about this is; should I take this as you can influence one particle but not all particles of a larger object? If so... If I can change one particle wouldn't I change the total state of the larger object?

Than a last question. If an observer were to remain neutral by any means, (so no interaction at all) would the particle still be in it's wave state when being observed?

posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 12:34 AM
Great question!

good news is we do affect sub atomic particals..

bad news is.. not on the level that would affect a physical object "a brick"

ect ect

its all about preception levels of phyiscs and your understand on quatum physics

once you observe @ the qautum level you infact change it just by observing it "stupid i know" but thats how it goes.. we kinda predict or atleast try to understand what is going to happen next.. as we are going to be both right and wrong we can work out what both are and make equations based on the assumption of both ; )

Once we understand that better we will infact be able to do alot more with q and sub atomic structures..

Nano tech right now is our magic.. quatom p is more about energy than matter

If you want someting to trun into something we use nano stuff

They "boffins" are working on a nano putty that can be shaped by electrons "3d tv" kinda thing used in presentations for cars and other objects.

we got loads of great things going on in labs atm not many are aware of due to money and industial reasons.

posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 12:37 AM
reply to post by symmetricAvenger

Thank you very much for your reply. I will do some more research into nano technology. (from what I read it must be quite fascinating)

posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 12:41 AM
no problems

I suggest you use IBM as you starting point.

just a tip

forgot to added s+f

[edit on 12-4-2009 by symmetricAvenger]

posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 12:42 AM
your understanding of the wave/particle duality is lacking. the following is a metaphor which i have developed to help.

there is an entity known as a "democrat" (atom). this entity behaves consistently and predictably, in nearly the exact same way that any physical object does.

"democrat" is comprised of millions individual constituents (sub-atomic particles). it is nearly impossible to say, for certain, what state any of those single individual constituents is in. there is a wide spectrum of ideologies that can be represented by "democrat". if you take a poll of these people, you will find an emerging pattern of behavior that arises. this pattern will seem like a ghost in the system: each of the individual people seem to behave independently and unpredictably, and yet there is an underlying organizing principle. this organizing principle is what is referred to as the "wave" in the wave/particle duality.

i can go on at length with this metaphor. it serves well, so go ahead and use your imagination and apply other principles of Quantum Mechanics to it.

i am not sure if i answered your question, but hopefully didnt confuse you more....

posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 12:46 AM
reply to post by tgidkp did confuse me more, but usually that's a good sign because most of the time when I'm confused about something I think about it later and than it starts to make sense. At least it keeps me curious. So thank you for your reply!

posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 12:53 AM
That is the main problem with (qp) the wave and particals are in essance yin and yang of its own nature.

we are trying our best to understand the funkyness of it as all chaos has order in order for it to be infact chaos!

Its like asking a question that you dont need the answer to but infact got the answer to a question you will ask befor you even asked it!

now if thats not confusing i dont know what is hehe
but in relation to the question about magic.

Nano tech would be alot better as it can be minipulated via electrcial currents as the atoms are not sub atomic particals so controlling there shape and alignmetn is pretty much simple compared to trying to do that on the sub atomic level "impossible atm"..

all things are made from atoms in the physical and this i would suggest would be a better path to follow.

its abit like alchemy in a way .. but thats abit more about chemistry really but we can infact make some neat things with nano tech like tiny little motors ect using atoms microns across that infact work! hehe

The first place i would point you to is IBM labs they love the stuff and were infact on of the first people to invest in nano tech "alien connection?" who knows but they have a very big lab and have made alot of things public

just do a simple google search Nano tech IMB.. and you will have lots of vids talks and papers pictures to wonder over

posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 01:05 AM
reply to post by ambushrocks

Ill try to explain this best i can. Its not so much us watching an object that causes its behavior to change. Sub atomic particles dont know there being watched and act differently,Whats happening is when some thing is observed were putting it in one spot in time and space. Particles can be anywhere any time. Best way i can explain that is Every possibility exists until we observe it then only one can exist. Nature cheats until a particle is observed it exists as a wave form not a particle,And its the interactions of the wave forms that produce what we see as a particle. Wow this is tough to explain.

posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 01:08 AM

Originally posted by symmetricAvenger
...we are trying our best to understand the funkyness of it as all chaos has order in order for it to be infact chaos!...

yes. this mysterious order that you are referring to arises from the OP's question about the Observer.

if you take my example above, you could very easily make the claim that "democrat" is created ONLY by the act of observation. if there were no pollsters, and no one to interpret the data, then "democrat" would not exist as a predictable and measurable entity.

interpretation and understanding. consciousness. observer.

posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 01:13 AM
hehe i agree and great anology btw

its a very querky thing but thats the nature of the beast i guess but once or if we do find the order to it "and it will have" the posibitlys are truley amazing to say the least and will herald a new form of physics!

Just think we could infact make "atoms" behave under the nano scale thats just simple mind bending if you think about it!!

teleportation and other wild things will infact become somewhat of a reality more than we thought

we could change ANYHTHING into ANYTHING "good old star trek" hehe

gave you a star aswell

posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 01:29 AM
So I have to ask the question. If tree falls in a forest and no one hears it. Does it make a sound? From what I understand after reading your explanation, No, you it doesn't make a sound, but it did indeed fall because we can see the results.

So what decides how the particles look when we observe them. What says we see a fallen tree instead of a standing tree if both possibilities existed up until the moment we observed one or the other.

posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 01:37 AM
Thank you all for your replies. It's funny that you mention something that is almost a contradiction on it's own (the order-chaos thing) to describe how things work. It is one of the reasons I wanted to learn more on quantum theory.

You see I'm at the moment trying to get the hang of this form of philosophy called dialectics or dialectic. Basicly one of the first principles that was explained to me was the following: "it is essential to not judge anything" (hence the contradiction in this "it is essential" is judging as well!) That to me was something I had heard of from the quantum theory, another one was the mention of an observer.

So I wanted to start this thread to find out about more (or maybe less...let's keep it similairities between quantum theory and dialectics.

posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 01:39 AM
ah no your miss understaning

If a tree falls it indeed make a sound! and it fell why?

coz you asking the question. thats the joy of it ; )

If you infact postulate the tree falling in the first place it gives rise to the sound and infact the falling of the tree..

its complex!

posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 01:40 AM
reply to post by SeeingBlue

I don't have knowledge on this question, just something that popped in my mind. Because the events leading up to the fall of the tree already occured?

posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 01:41 AM
reply to post by symmetricAvenger

Lol... that's a cool one!!!
I need to remember explains a lot!!

/edit I wonder if this is not a one line post

[edit on 12/4/09 by ambushrocks]

posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 01:42 AM
Are you saying every fallen tree is the result of someone talking about falling trees? We we just knocked over 3 trees?

posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 01:44 AM
reply to post by ambushrocks

well thats the thing we are trying to understand in a way. the more or infact when we do mesure it.. it changes to something totaly different.. so right now the way we work it out is to ask the question "why" in our idea or what we want to understand about it.. and also say ok well what if we dont ask will we infact get the same reslut..

shockingly they both come back the same!! lol its mind bending like i said, tho as you are aware in (qp) we are both right and wrong at the same time.. there is an underlying reason why we are both right and wrong and this is the fundermental reason for us to ask what is going on.

we will get to the bottome of it even if we are wrong! ; ) hehe fun or wat

great subject

posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 01:49 AM
reply to post by SeeingBlue

Not technialy but its a great anology that does not work in (qp) as once you postulate the idea it changes to the very question you have indeed asked.

If you ask a question, that will inherently give you an outcome! yes or no or whatever.. but in ASKING the question will infact determent the paramters ect

so we knew the outcome just by asking the question..

Please see my thread on we are quatum computers

makes alot more sens to understand when asking a question you infact already know the answer or atleast one that makes you happy! or why bother asking it?

thats why when we observer @ the (qp) level it all goes mental on us coz we ask it says NO but then says YES at the same time..

why did you ask if the tree had fallen in a forest? "thats our problem in (qp)

we just cant get our heads round that part yet.. but give it time we will

posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 01:59 AM

Originally posted by SeeingBlue
...What says we see a fallen tree instead of a standing tree if both possibilities existed up until the moment we observed one or the other?

trees fall. new ones grow. these processes are random (within pre-determined limits). however, there are non-random processes such as cutting down trees and planting new ones. in such a case i have to say that the person that cut the tree down is the one that determined its state.

Quantum Mechanics is a play on SCALE. let's rephrase your question:

whether or not any single tree is standing or fallen (or whether or not it has made a sound) is inconsequential to the forest.

the forest itself, in order to exist, requires an observer to determine that a certain "tree count threshold" has been achieved.

posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 02:10 AM
Ok, So after just reading a little bit of your thread, I came to the realization that if our reality is a fractal reality were it repeats it's self in the same under laying pattern, then why would our world not follow this same pattern? Is it possible that our planets are someone elses sub-atomic particles and that our sub-atomic particles are someones elses planets so to speak...? I also seen an article that made mention of how looking into space likes similar to look at the brain's network or whatever. So we even see the same pattern in our daily lives..

If this is true where does the fractal cycle break and we get our souls in eternity, or does it break? I hate the thought of my reality being so uniform and predictable to a certain aspect... I don't want my afterlife being the same.. would feel less free you know? So the cycle has to break right?

[edit on 12-4-2009 by SeeingBlue]

top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in