The "observer effect": Is it proof the system is "aware it's being observed?"

page: 4
11
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 08:21 AM
link   
So essentially this Universe is made of electrons and such in superposition until something observes it?

So with nearly infinite possible life in our little Universe, that would mean "reality" in general could be shaped in large part by lots of things we'll probably never meet or know about. Interesting stuff.




posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by thejlxc
So essentially this Universe is made of electrons and such in superposition until something observes it?

So with nearly infinite possible life in our little Universe, that would mean "reality" in general could be shaped in large part by lots of things we'll probably never meet or know about. Interesting stuff.

imagine if we master this concept....think: terraforming, or even universe forming. mind boggling stuff really.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by BBalazs
so the turkey allegory is scientifically wrong, it just provides an illustration for a faulty experiment, using different equipment, not accounting for backdraft, and the finally disturbing the whole process. would you call that a valid scientific experiment, that any conclusions can be drawn upon?


There is nothing wrong the turkey experiment as an analogy. It is meant to make laymen understand what the observer effect means. It is the effect an measurement instrument has on the outcome of an experiment. I am not sure why you insist it has to be a scientific experiment.


regarding multiverse,it may not be supported ( i presume you mean academia here), but that makes no difference, in fact experimentation has moved way beyond this point. wether a theory is supported makes no difference to wether it is valid. and as pointed out, this result is only applied as some starting point in multiverse, which actually build upon it. but hey, if you discount a totally valid and proven (as much as einstein) theory, because its not popular, that up to you. your filters, not mine. I dabble in all theory, as I know that they will all be wrong in the vestitude of time.


You said that the double slit experiment is about multiverses. I just pointed out that is not that case. Maybe it is for you, but it is not in general.


regarding observers effect,a last word. you cannot deny or confirm observers effect, as you cannot detach yourself from it. even instrument measue what you want them to! descreptency is results does not equal observers effect, but bad science. but if you are able to do this, please let me know


No, that is not bad science. It is bad science when you ignore discrepancies in measurement results. When you demonstrate your measurements are within the expected accuracy of your measurement device, your science is perfectly fine. In fact, I can't think of any measurement device that does not show an error to some degree. According to you logic, that would mean all science is bad.


1 thing we know for sure small stuff acts weird, not s it is supposed to, and art experiment is flawed as regarding observers effect. it is not a demonstration of observers effect, but of a bad setup. you cannot demonstrate observers effect for gods sake, but you can turn to magic tricks with turkey to provide a false analogy. but fair enough, if anyone should presume awareness based on this, this should shut them up.
in history we have considered the earth the center, thats a type of observers effect to. or remember when there was nothing smaller then an atom, and we had solved it all. the experiment is flawed, wether you care to see it or not.
edit on 18-1-2012 by BBalazs because: smart comments


Seems to me that small stuff acts as it is supposed to. Maybe not as how we expect it to, but thats something different. And yes you can demonstrate the observer effect.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 10:46 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 





just to get you started.

and here is roger penrose
edit on 18-1-2012 by minor007 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by BBalazs
so the turkey allegory is scientifically wrong, it just provides an illustration for a faulty experiment, using different equipment, not accounting for backdraft, and the finally disturbing the whole process. would you call that a valid scientific experiment, that any conclusions can be drawn upon?


There is nothing wrong the turkey experiment as an analogy.
Thank you PLB and yes BBalazs, I think you get the point, which is that the measurements can be made using different equipment, and the different equipment disturbs the process differently.

In the case of the turkey, it's likely neither thermometer is 100% accurate in measuring the temperature. In fact I checked the calibration of both and they were reasonably well calibrated. But because the two thermometers are designed differently, one disturbs the system it is measuring more than the other one does, so it gives a different result.

This type of variation can also be shown in the double slit experiment. By varying the design of measuring instruments, (just like we did in the turkey experiment) we can vary the degree to which the double slit interference pattern appears or does not appear, so it's actually a pretty good analogy in that respect. But like any analogy, it has limits.

The limit in the case of the turkey analogy is that if we wanted ever more accurate measurements of the true temperature of the turkey's interior, we could design ever more accurate methods than either of the two thermometers I used, though as PLB said even the best method won't be entirely free of some error or uncertainty, which is why scientific graphs are often shown with "error bars" like this:

www.lhup.edu...

The vertical lines are "error bars" which you can see sometimes in scientific papers, and they show the range of uncertainty in the researcher's measurements, usually to a defined statistical measure such as a set number of standard deviations.

In the case of the double slit experiment, to my knowledge, all efforts to re-design detectors to make the interference from the detector go away have failed, and the reason for this is fairly well understood...the things being measured are so small that so far it just hasn't been possible to observe things that small without affecting them somehow.

Regarding the scientific validity of the turkey experiment, I don't have a peer reviewed paper, but I suspect most scientists will look at my results and say"well duh, that's exactly what we'd expect to see based on the known laws of physics" so there's not really any new information there nor any point in publishing it. But I have provided hopefully enough information where you could try this or similar experiments in your own kitchen next time you cook a whole turkey, if you doubt the scientific validity.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 10:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


You are forgetting the other mechanics of quantum that appear in the double slit experiment. For instance how can an electron be in two places at the same time and stays that way till something measures it in which it will appear at either one of the 2 locations. This is called superposition
edit on 18-1-2012 by minor007 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by minor007
 

I didn't forget that. The electron being in two different places at the same time is only one possible explanation. Another possibility is the DeBroglie–Bohm theory or pilot wave theory, which says the electron only appears to be in two places at once but it really isn't. The latest research I've read still supports this as a possibility.

But whichever explanation is correct (and we don't know the answer to that), the act of observing does cause the interference pattern to diminish in either case, so that's the point which is relevant to my OP.

Edit to add: I see Bohm is one of the scientists interviewed in the first video you posted, so you need to read the DeBroglie–Bohm theory to understand his theory that the electron isn't really in two places at once, but it really passes through one slit or the other, even when we see the interference pattern.
edit on 18-1-2012 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


bohms theory is inconsistent with experiments which test Bell's inequalities. The Aspect Experiments showed that photons have spin and Bohms model without spin gives predictions that differ from those of quantum mechanics. Bohm himself had to accept that spin must be treated in quantum mechanics and this can be incorporated into the model built up from the Aspect experiments

Further reading



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by minor007
 

Your source says:

This subject is not likely to succeed.

Not everyone agrees with that assessment, as this paper shows by addressing some of the concerns cited in your source:

Why isn't every physicist a Bohmian?

My own position is somewhat neutral, I'm in no way trying to advocate the Pilot wave theory as better in any way than the Copenhagen interpretation, and in fact it may not be as good. However I haven't seen that it should be easily dismissed either, as indicated in that Oliver Passon paper which addresses some of the claims R. F. Streater raised in your source.

I tend to agree with R. F. Streater about the many worlds interpretation as something best to be avoided, as it's my least favorite possible interpretation, however there are some who think this explanation has possibilities.

Until we have a definitive answer on the correct interpretation of the double slit experiment, we don't have a definitive answer. I think even those who support the Copenhagen interpretation would agree with that.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 02:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by BBalazs
so the turkey allegory is scientifically wrong, it just provides an illustration for a faulty experiment, using different equipment, not accounting for backdraft, and the finally disturbing the whole process. would you call that a valid scientific experiment, that any conclusions can be drawn upon?


There is nothing wrong the turkey experiment as an analogy. It is meant to make laymen understand what the observer effect means. It is the effect an measurement instrument has on the outcome of an experiment. I am not sure why you insist it has to be a scientific experiment.


regarding multiverse,it may not be supported ( i presume you mean academia here), but that makes no difference, in fact experimentation has moved way beyond this point. wether a theory is supported makes no difference to wether it is valid. and as pointed out, this result is only applied as some starting point in multiverse, which actually build upon it. but hey, if you discount a totally valid and proven (as much as einstein) theory, because its not popular, that up to you. your filters, not mine. I dabble in all theory, as I know that they will all be wrong in the vestitude of time.


You said that the double slit experiment is about multiverses. I just pointed out that is not that case. Maybe it is for you, but it is not in general.


regarding observers effect,a last word. you cannot deny or confirm observers effect, as you cannot detach yourself from it. even instrument measue what you want them to! descreptency is results does not equal observers effect, but bad science. but if you are able to do this, please let me know


No, that is not bad science. It is bad science when you ignore discrepancies in measurement results. When you demonstrate your measurements are within the expected accuracy of your measurement device, your science is perfectly fine. In fact, I can't think of any measurement device that does not show an error to some degree. According to you logic, that would mean all science is bad.


1 thing we know for sure small stuff acts weird, not s it is supposed to, and art experiment is flawed as regarding observers effect. it is not a demonstration of observers effect, but of a bad setup. you cannot demonstrate observers effect for gods sake, but you can turn to magic tricks with turkey to provide a false analogy. but fair enough, if anyone should presume awareness based on this, this should shut them up.
in history we have considered the earth the center, thats a type of observers effect to. or remember when there was nothing smaller then an atom, and we had solved it all. the experiment is flawed, wether you care to see it or not.
edit on 18-1-2012 by BBalazs because: smart comments

1. There is nothing wrong with the turkey experiment as an analogy. These are in fact my words. reread.
2. It bad science. What I meant is the scientific experiment is bad. Surley you are not advocating abandoning the hadron collider, etc for turkey experiments, as they are sooooooo perfect. Right, because at this point, this is what you seem to be writing.
3. There are no other turkey experiments as art himself admitted, bringing his reference and invocation of these studies (which I suspected were no existent) en par with the calls of marko people. So if i was really an uptight asshle i would just dismiss anything further.
4. with the smll stuff, again exactly my point. we have an preconceived idea of how it is supposed to act, yet it acts differently. This is an fact what the magic of science is about.

Seems to me that small stuff acts as it is supposed to. Maybe not as how we expect it to, but thats something different. And yes you can demonstrate the observer effect.
edit on 19-1-2012 by BBalazs because: edit2



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 02:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by BBalazs
so the turkey allegory is scientifically wrong, it just provides an illustration for a faulty experiment, using different equipment, not accounting for backdraft, and the finally disturbing the whole process. would you call that a valid scientific experiment, that any conclusions can be drawn upon?


There is nothing wrong the turkey experiment as an analogy.
Thank you PLB and yes BBalazs, I think you get the point, which is that the measurements can be made using different equipment, and the different equipment disturbs the process differently.

In the case of the turkey, it's likely neither thermometer is 100% accurate in measuring the temperature. In fact I checked the calibration of both and they were reasonably well calibrated. But because the two thermometers are designed differently, one disturbs the system it is measuring more than the other one does, so it gives a different result.

This type of variation can also be shown in the double slit experiment. By varying the design of measuring instruments, (just like we did in the turkey experiment) we can vary the degree to which the double slit interference pattern appears or does not appear, so it's actually a pretty good analogy in that respect. But like any analogy, it has limits.

The limit in the case of the turkey analogy is that if we wanted ever more accurate measurements of the true temperature of the turkey's interior, we could design ever more accurate methods than either of the two thermometers I used, though as PLB said even the best method won't be entirely free of some error or uncertainty, which is why scientific graphs are often shown with "error bars" like this:

www.lhup.edu...

The vertical lines are "error bars" which you can see sometimes in scientific papers, and they show the range of uncertainty in the researcher's measurements, usually to a defined statistical measure such as a set number of standard deviations.

In the case of the double slit experiment, to my knowledge, all efforts to re-design detectors to make the interference from the detector go away have failed, and the reason for this is fairly well understood...the things being measured are so small that so far it just hasn't been possible to observe things that small without affecting them somehow.

Regarding the scientific validity of the turkey experiment, I don't have a peer reviewed paper, but I suspect most scientists will look at my results and say"well duh, that's exactly what we'd expect to see based on the known laws of physics" so there's not really any new information there nor any point in publishing it. But I have provided hopefully enough information where you could try this or similar experiments in your own kitchen next time you cook a whole turkey, if you doubt the scientific validity.

arb, because you fail to admit the setup of your scientific experiment is flawed, this is what you are inferring:
1) No need for hadroncolliders, etc. We just need a turkey and some basic equipment. Surely you are not serious?
2) As suspected no turkey experiments. Your invocation of such results, is akin to the ideas and references of marko people. I wil not push you on this, but you obviously made that up. At least you can admit it to yourself.
3) You missed m point. I am working on a project you may find interesting, care to hear more?



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 02:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by BBalazs
so the turkey allegory is scientifically wrong, it just provides an illustration for a faulty experiment, using different equipment, not accounting for backdraft, and the finally disturbing the whole process. would you call that a valid scientific experiment, that any conclusions can be drawn upon?


There is nothing wrong the turkey experiment as an analogy.
Thank you PLB and yes BBalazs, I think you get the point, which is that the measurements can be made using different equipment, and the different equipment disturbs the process differently.

In the case of the turkey, it's likely neither thermometer is 100% accurate in measuring the temperature. In fact I checked the calibration of both and they were reasonably well calibrated. But because the two thermometers are designed differently, one disturbs the system it is measuring more than the other one does, so it gives a different result.

This type of variation can also be shown in the double slit experiment. By varying the design of measuring instruments, (just like we did in the turkey experiment) we can vary the degree to which the double slit interference pattern appears or does not appear, so it's actually a pretty good analogy in that respect. But like any analogy, it has limits.

The limit in the case of the turkey analogy is that if we wanted ever more accurate measurements of the true temperature of the turkey's interior, we could design ever more accurate methods than either of the two thermometers I used, though as PLB said even the best method won't be entirely free of some error or uncertainty, which is why scientific graphs are often shown with "error bars" like this:

www.lhup.edu...

The vertical lines are "error bars" which you can see sometimes in scientific papers, and they show the range of uncertainty in the researcher's measurements, usually to a defined statistical measure such as a set number of standard deviations.

In the case of the double slit experiment, to my knowledge, all efforts to re-design detectors to make the interference from the detector go away have failed, and the reason for this is fairly well understood...the things being measured are so small that so far it just hasn't been possible to observe things that small without affecting them somehow.

Regarding the scientific validity of the turkey experiment, I don't have a peer reviewed paper, but I suspect most scientists will look at my results and say"well duh, that's exactly what we'd expect to see based on the known laws of physics" so there's not really any new information there nor any point in publishing it. But I have provided hopefully enough information where you could try this or similar experiments in your own kitchen next time you cook a whole turkey, if you doubt the scientific validity.

art there is a big difference between "t most scientists will look at my results and say"well duh, that's exactly what we'd expect to see based on the known laws of physics"" and saying there are studies on this....based on the above analogy, I could write: i suspect most creationist would view the world and say god exists. It is a viewpoint. Enough said. The fact remains, no peer reviewed (this is what you infer I presume, because based on studies the earth is flat, etc) turkey studies as of 2012



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 02:40 AM
link   
First of all, I discount your turkey experiment as having anything to do with observer effect. You used the wrong tools.
They are dissimillar. Obviously one of them is taking the ambient heat in the oven and allowing it to transverse the tube, making the temperature reading in the oven, at it's tip inside the turkey, different.

The other does not exhibit this as much as the first one. But both must exhibit this effect in some degree because because metal conducts heat. The expected conduction of external heat in the element is taken into account in the calibration process when manufactured.

Since both are tested in the same ambient air in a water cup, they would both show the same temperature, with minute allowance. I would call this simple thermodynamics , not observer effect.

It is possible that the observer effect itself is caused by us always using the wrong tools to measure what we are looking for, thereby changing what we percieve, not what is really happening.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 02:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by charlyv
First of all, I discount your turkey experiment as having anything to do with observer effect. You used the wrong tools.
They are dissimillar. Obviously one of them is taking the ambient heat in the oven and allowing it to transverse the tube, making the temperature reading in the oven, at it's tip inside the turkey, different.

The other does not exhibit this as much as the first one. But both must exhibit this effect in some degree because because metal conducts heat. The expected conduction of external heat in the element is taken into account in the calibration process when manufactured.

Since both are tested in the same ambient air in a water cup, they would both show the same temperature, with minute allowance. I would call this simple thermodynamics , not observer effect.

It is possible that the observer effect itself is caused by us always using the wrong tools to measure what we are looking for, thereby changing what we percieve, not what is really happening.


lets not forget point 2: art took the turkey out midway, thereby disturbing and invalidating the whole experiment. also we don't know the airflow of said cooking apparatus. but hey, apparently we don't need hadron colluders and such.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 03:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by charlyv
But both must exhibit this effect in some degree because because metal conducts heat. The expected conduction of external heat in the element is taken into account in the calibration process when manufactured.
What external heat in what element? I never put the thermometers in the oven so they were never exposed to external heat in the oven. The thermometers have a calibration check point for boiling water, so that's part of what you do to make sure they are calibrated, you put them in boiling water and they should match the calibration check point, which since I'm only about 440 feet above sea level, they do. If I was in Denver that wouldn't work since water boils at a different temperature in the mile high city. But you see the mass of the thermometers isn't a factor in the calibration checks.


Since both are tested in the same ambient air in a water cup, they would both show the same temperature, with minute allowance. I would call this simple thermodynamics , not observer effect.
Actually the observer effect on the turkey temperature measurement is a result of thermodynamics, yes. But they don't have a calibration checkpoint in ambient air so I don't know what you're talking about. Ambient air is off the low end of the scale on these particular meat thermometers.


It is possible that the observer effect itself is caused by us always using the wrong tools to measure what we are looking for, thereby changing what we perceive, not what is really happening.
I addressed that in my previous post specifically with regard to the double slit experiment. I'm not sure we can conclude we are using the wrong tools, because we haven't been able to find the "right ones", so one possibility is, there's no such thing as "right tool" to not disturb the double slit observer effect, therefore it's hard to say you have a wrong tool. Or maybe there is a way to measure it without disturbing it but we haven't figured out how to do it yet. I think the former may be the case.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 03:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by BBalazs
arb, because you fail to admit the setup of your scientific experiment is flawed,
Specifically how it it flawed? You haven't explained that yet?


this is what you are inferring:
1) No need for hadroncolliders, etc. We just need a turkey and some basic equipment. Surely you are not serious?
I never said that. You're putting words in my mouth.

2) As suspected no turkey experiments. Your invocation of such results, is akin to the ideas and references of marko people. I wil not push you on this, but you obviously made that up. At least you can admit it to yourself.
What are marko people? And no I didn't make anything up.

3) You missed m point. I am working on a project you may find interesting, care to hear more?
If it's not the topic of this thread, start a thread on it and if it's interesting and I see it I'll read it there.


Originally posted by BBalazs
lets not forget point 2: art took the turkey out midway, thereby disturbing and invalidating the whole experiment. also we don't know the airflow of said cooking apparatus. but hey, apparently we don't need hadron colluders and such.
Who is Art?

Who took the turkey out midway out of what? What are you talking about?

And I never mentioned hadron colliders, so unless you are going to talk about how that's relevant to the OP topic, there's no point in bringing it up.
edit on 19-1-2012 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 04:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by BBalazs
arb, because you fail to admit the setup of your scientific experiment is flawed,
Specifically how it it flawed? You haven't explained that yet?


this is what you are inferring:
1) No need for hadroncolliders, etc. We just need a turkey and some basic equipment. Surely you are not serious?
I never said that. You're putting words in my mouth.

2) As suspected no turkey experiments. Your invocation of such results, is akin to the ideas and references of marko people. I wil not push you on this, but you obviously made that up. At least you can admit it to yourself.
What are marko people? And no I didn't make anything up.

3) You missed m point. I am working on a project you may find interesting, care to hear more?
If it's not the topic of this thread, start a thread on it and if it's interesting and I see it I'll read it there.


Originally posted by BBalazs
lets not forget point 2: art took the turkey out midway, thereby disturbing and invalidating the whole experiment. also we don't know the airflow of said cooking apparatus. but hey, apparently we don't need hadron colluders and such.
Who is Art?

Who took the turkey out midway out of what? What are you talking about?

And I never mentioned hadron colliders, so unless you are going to talk about how that's relevant to the OP topic, there's no point in bringing it up.
edit on 19-1-2012 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

arb, context is everything.
1. no peer reviewed studies on turkeys, as proposed.
2. its flawed in so much as it doesn't demonstrate observers effect. it could demonstrate that, but the setup is wrong, i think i have clearly demonstrated this. just think airflow, different type of instruments. the water test makes no difference in this case. anyway i will not argue any more as i agree with you.
3. I admit, I was mistaken, you did not take the turkey out. reread, but you did fail to calcite airflow and such.
4. hadron colluders are inferred so context.
5. you have forgotten that marko rodin people, who have been taking you down the rabbit hole, for over a year?
6. can i write a private message to you about my project? its short.

well actually is does demonstrate observers effect, BUT ALL scientific experiments demonstrate that, as it is impossible to detach from this.
so my notes, observations that your experiment demonstrates observers effect are based on this. it cannot demonstrate observers effect, because
1) u cannot demonstrate it
2) even if you could with this experiment, you didn't take into account different instruments, draft. hence it is a flawed experiment in scientific terms. getting my drift?
edit on 19-1-2012 by BBalazs because: edit


aahhhh, observers effect is like the government, you cannot prove or disprove government....it is a concept, you cannot disprove concepts. getting my drift? you can point out what they are.
anyway, i am obviously being too nitpick, but at least we are now discussing interesting subjects.
edit on 19-1-2012 by BBalazs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 04:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by BBalazs
1. no peer reviewed studies on turkeys, as proposed.
It is what it is. Have you ever heard of the tv show Mr. Wizard's World? It was a show full of science related experiments for kids, and no peer reviewed papers. Think of my experiment in that context. The lack of papers didn't make the experiments invalid, you can do them yourself in most cases, as you can do the experiment I described in your own home next time you cook a turkey.

2. its flawed in so much as it doesn't demonstrate observers effect. it could demonstrate that, but the setup is wrong, i think i have clearly demonstrated this. just think airflow, different type of instruments. the water test makes no difference in this case. anyway i will not argue any more as i agree with you.
As I see it, airflow wasn't much of an issue in the experiment so you lost me talking about airflow. I plunged some ambient temp thermometers into a hot turkey, and there's no air inside the turkey to speak of, where I was making the measurements, in the breast meat. Therefore I'm not seeing how airflow is a factor. As far as I can tell, it's not.


3. I admit, I was mistaken, you did not take the turkey out. reread, but you did fail to calcite airflow and such.
Again with the airflow, and again I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.


4. hadron colluders are inferred so context.
I never inferred them. You brought them up out of nowhere.

5. you have forgotten that marko rodin people, who have been taking you down the rabbit hole, for over a year?
I never went down any rabbit hole with Rodin's stuff, it's obvious nonsense. But I wouldn't argue too much with the rabbit hole characterization of quantum mechanics, to some degree.

6. can i write a private message to you about my project? its short.
Yes you may.
edit on 19-1-2012 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 05:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by BBalazs
1. no peer reviewed studies on turkeys, as proposed.
It is what it is. Have you ever heard of the tv show Mr. Wizard's World? It was a show full of science related experiments for kids, and no peer reviewed papers. Think of my experiment in that context. The lack of papers didn't make the experiments invalid, you can do them yourself in most cases, as you can do the experiment I described in your own home next time you cook a turkey.

2. its flawed in so much as it doesn't demonstrate observers effect. it could demonstrate that, but the setup is wrong, i think i have clearly demonstrated this. just think airflow, different type of instruments. the water test makes no difference in this case. anyway i will not argue any more as i agree with you.
As I see it, airflow wasn't much of an issue in the experiment so you lost me talking about airflow. I plunged some ambient temp thermometers into a hot turkey, and there's no air inside the turkey to speak of, where I was making the measurements, in the breast meat. Therefore I'm not seeing how airflow is a factor. As far as I can tell, it's not.


3. I admit, I was mistaken, you did not take the turkey out. reread, but you did fail to calcite airflow and such.
Again with the airflow, and again I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.


4. hadron colluders are inferred so context.
I never inferred them. You brought them up out of nowhere.

5. you have forgotten that marko rodin people, who have been taking you down the rabbit hole, for over a year?
I never went down any rabbit hole with Rodin's stuff, it's obvious nonsense. But I wouldn't argue too much with the rabbit hole characterization of quantum mechanics, to some degree.

6. can i write a private message to you about my project? its short.
Yes you may.
edit on 19-1-2012 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

yes, but you did go down the rabbit hole. you disproved the whole idea as idiotic in 3 pages. you even proposed with buddhasystem a chakra theory which is more believable (add 7 tetonic plates)....dont you see these people are trolls, i think they are pulling your leg....you spent 1 year disproving it, when you did it, in 1 day....but you may have another opinion, i think you have been trolled. and even if those people believe it, does it make a difference? i have a theory about this...
colliders were inferred by bps comments.
there is no air flow in you oven? is your oven a perfect heat system?

yes quantum mechanics is a rabbit hole, but that doesn't make it less valid....it is a trove of opportunity. as long as you are aware and retain your critical senses, its okay to go there. i believe.
edit on 19-1-2012 by BBalazs because: edit



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 08:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 




What external heat in what element? I never put the thermometers in the oven so they were never exposed to external heat in the oven.


Ok then, out of the oven. The conducting tubes go down through the turkey from hotter areas to cooler areas. The tip is where the sensor is. One of the thermometers does not insulate the heat from the probe tube as well as the other one. It allows heat from entire probe to conduct down to the tip. Same effect. There was no temperature gradient in the water test, so both read the same.





new topics
top topics
 
11
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join