The "observer effect": Is it proof the system is "aware it's being observed?", page 5
Pages: <<  2    3    4    5  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 9 times


reply posted on 19-1-2012 @ 09:09 AM by BBalazs
Originally posted by charlyv
Another way, next turkey time, to do this test.
Use thermo-couples and a pair of ohm meters.

Thermo-couples are dissimilar metals soldered together at one end (the tip). One copper, and one steel works good.
They are resistant to temperature fluctuations caused by having to snake probes through different temperature gradients to be attached to places of interest inside machinery. This is what labs use. Calibrate ohm meter using a probe tip in boiling water and ice by taking a resistance measurement on each. Tune each ohm meter so it shows the same reading at the boiling water temerature. That is base line. Then do turkey test. Both resistance values should be virtually identical. You can translate to temperature by using a thermo-couple calibration graph easily found online. Plug in the ice temp resistance and the boiling water temp resistance to give you a gradient graph in C or F. The graph will extrapolate temps from 0C to 1000C
edit on 19-1-2012 by charlyv because: (no reason given)
edit on 19-1-2012 by charlyv because: clarity
edit on 19-1-2012 by charlyv because: (no reason given)


ha I knew thee was more to this turkey experiment!
We demand art redo turkey experiment on said assumptions.
All those in favor, say Yes.

charleyv: is the home cooking appliance an appropriate device for this anyway? As there are air circulations that could temper the results, no?
edit on 19-1-2012 by BBalazs because: (no reason given)


sorry art is a typo. i keep writing art when it should be arb...actually, i now realize its smell check))) so sorry art, you may in future still be art according to my spellcheck
edit on 19-1-2012 by BBalazs because: edit


reply posted on 19-1-2012 @ 09:51 AM by BBalazs
reply to post by Arbitrageur


arb, how do i actually send you a private message?


also is flog ins something good or bad? nope smell check again. flagging.
edit on 19-1-2012 by BBalazs because: (no reason given)




reply posted on 26-1-2012 @ 10:28 AM by Arbitrageur
Originally posted by TWISTEDWORDS
The problem with this experiment is that you tested two different areas of the turkey. So each side of the turkey is made up of different strands of tissue and both sides would never cook exactly the same. The experiment should have been done by measuring the same side with the two different measuring devices.
Actually the OP was almost TL/DR length already so I omitted some detail, but I actually did this...I measured on the same side with both thermometers in slightly different spots. the I repeated on the other side I even swapped the thermometers and tried re-using some of the same holes.

Then you have take into account that thicker metals heat differently than thinner metals. So the experiment is not conclusive.
Actually the experiment was conclusive. The thicker metal did have different thermal mass than the thinner metal. That was the conclusion I came to from the measurements I made.

As far as the observer, you then have to ask who is the observer? Is it the turkey, you, the two measuring devices, the air, the stove..who?
I don't think that's such an important point. I could have used a robot, and completely different thermometers that were electronic and mechanical and I think I'd get the same results if one thermometer was more massive than the other. I look at it as a measurement system.

The key point of the thread is that the thing being observed (the turkey) responds to the observation, and when you change the method of observation, it responds differently to the changed method of observation, "almost as if it's aware it's being observed" as the "what the bleep do we know" movie claims, but that's not what's happening, the turkey has no true awareness after it's been in the oven for 4 hours as far as I can tell.


reply posted on 26-1-2012 @ 03:40 PM by The Matrix Traveller
reply to post by Arbitrageur


Some Lighthearted thoughts...

I don't think that's such an important point. I could have used a robot, and completely different thermometers that were electronic and mechanical and I think I'd get the same results if one thermometer was more massive than the other. I look at it as a measurement system.

To ignore or reject a single "component" of the experiment/equation is unscientific.

So the "Observer" is Part of the Equation .

This is why the "Observer" no matter whether it is a robot or the human species, is very important.

BUT the Human "specie" is still involved, because You/We are "Observing" Through the Human Species and can't escape this FACT.

So what is observing through the Species is that which we call Awareness, otherwise you wouldn't know anything at all for that matter involving your experience or Universe.

These are the 2 Primary Components of the Experiment.

TWO FACTS

a. The Observer i.e. "Awareness".

b The Experiment, that which is being observed i.e. "The Story".

The Human Species behaves like a "Program Filter" that Awareness experiences through.

This is why you/we are debating the Story, or this thread would NOT exist.... LOL.

So to ignore or reject this Fact regarding the components (a.) and (b.) is Unscientific to say the least.

For a poor example...
The Picture seen on you Computer Screen, is Nothing at all like the "Workings" that produce the Image on Screen.

You see in ALL the Sciences at present, Scientists are only Exploring the "STORY" and are NOT looking at WHAT is Producing the STORY (this Universe) and HOW.

But this is to be expected at this stage in "Evolution" of the Species isn't it? LOL.

What is happening in front of you, is nothing at all like what is producing the Experience.

At the end of the day, it is "Awareness" that is observing through a "Filter of Understanding", we call The Human Species, and if this is NOT being taken into Account, it is Unscientific to say the least.

It is common knowledge in Neurology, that Decisions (Including reasoning or interpretation) are made "Emotionally" rather than by Intelligence.

(Unfortunately I am Not a Neurologist)

So ALL Components of the "Equation" have to be taken into Account, or your/our Understanding contains Error.

The key point of the thread is that the thing being observed (the turkey)


You mention The "Observer" with your Own words, but then omit or reject the entity or this Component ???

responds to the observation, and when you change the method of observation, it responds differently to the changed method of observation, "almost as if it's aware it's being observed" as the "what the bleep do we know" movie claims, but that's not what's happening,

Do you understand what I am getting at???

LOL.... Nothing religious of theology or Philosophy, but only pure unadulterated FACTS.

the turkey has no true awareness after it's been in the oven for 4 hours as far as I can tell.

LOL... Absolutely true... with regard to your turkey.

BUT "Awareness" is Still observing through that Human Species, well I hope so... LOL.
A "Filter" (The Human Species) to experience a "Story" through...

So the only practical thing to do is enjoy eating the turkey.... Provided it is cooked to perfection.

edit on 26-1-2012 by The Matrix Traveller because: Syntax



reply posted on 29-1-2012 @ 01:10 PM by polit
Originally posted by rogerstigers
From my limited understanding on the subject, I think this has something to do with the quantum wave function. It is a weird phenomenon that (until recently) was considered to be merely a statistical tool (in other words, not a real physical aspect of the universe) when understanding reality. Basically, it's the idea that when something is observed, the universe collapses that set of waves into a concrete reality for the duration of the measurement. When not observed, all possibilities are equally viable.

arstechnica.com...

To me, it's all.. well, the good Doctor explains it best..

edit on 11-28-2011 by rogerstigers because: (no reason given)


Actually, you are just describing the systems of math they use to determine the probability of X event. There has never been any proof that anything like what you are describing actually happens in nature. What has happened is the explanation has been dumbed down and dilluted so it can be easily digested by people watching Discovery Channel.

The reason they say that the probablyit blah blah b/s collapses from quantum wave form into reality is only because they create a matrix of all the possible quantum states of X event. Basically they assign a value to each possible state and union them all together and determine that Y outcome has Z% of occuring. And from there they make the leap in logic that every possible event is occuring simultaneously until the quantum wave-form collapses into the set reality.

It is all dumbed down explanations of math with absolutely no basis in reality. Please prove me wrong if I am incorrect.


reply posted on 29-1-2012 @ 06:41 PM by Arbitrageur
Originally posted by polit
It is all dumbed down explanations of math with absolutely no basis in reality. Please prove me wrong if I am incorrect.
I think the "absolutely no basis in reality" is stretching it a bit.

Here is a more accurate way of saying what I think you're trying to say.

Scientists have a model that makes extremely accurate mathematical predictions about what will happen in quantum experiments. They have not yet proven that this model is the only one that can make such accurate predictions.

But the fact that it makes very accurate predictions of the outcome of the experiments does certainly give it a connection with reality. However some of the Earth-centric models of the solar system could make somewhat accurate predictions too such as the Ptolemaic epicycle model, but they were just good models at making predictions. It wasn't until we had better instrumentation that we proved what the true and correct model was. It's possible that quantum mechanics and specifically the Copenhagen interpretation may similarly be adjusted, or refined someday by better instrumentation.

However I'd point out that even though the Ptolemaic epicycle model of the solar system was incorrect, it was so darn good that in some sense, we still use it today, in planetariums that still have mechanical projection systems:

www.polaris.iastate.edu...
As an indication of exactly how good the Ptolemaic model is, modern planetariums are built using gears and motors that essentially reproduce the Ptolemaic model for the appearance of the sky as viewed from a stationary Earth. In the planetarium projector, motors and gears provide uniform motion of the heavenly bodies. One motor moves the planet projector around in a big circle, which in this case is the deferent, and another gear or motor takes the place of the epicycle.
That's pretty amazing for a "wrong" model, isn't it?

So in some sense, even an incorrect model like the Ptolemaic epicycle model can't be said to be completely disconnected from reality if it makes accurate predictions which it does.

I would also remind you of the words of George Box:

en.wikiquote.org...
Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful.
or the variant:
Remember that all models are wrong; the practical question is how wrong do they have to be to not be useful.

edit on 29-1-2012 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



reply posted on 29-1-2012 @ 06:47 PM by minor007
reply to post by Arbitrageur


I posted a link a few pages back and i dont think any of you have read it. The copenhagen interpretation is the most valid. It has withstood all experiments trying to disprove it, which has led some scientists to question if we are asking the right questions. For the time being science in this area is at an impasse and it will only be further advanced with the data from CERN whether or not Higgs Boson is found or not.


reply posted on 29-1-2012 @ 07:00 PM by Arbitrageur
reply to post by minor007

I did just say that "It's possible that quantum mechanics and specifically the Copenhagen interpretation may similarly be adjusted, or refined someday by better instrumentation. " Of course new experiments at CERN would be an example of new instrumentation that might give us more insight. And I don't doubt that the Copenhagen interpretation is most preferred, however I don't think it's been proven. What you are saying is that it just hasn't been disproven.

Regarding your link, that's what my OP is about. I've determined the same things happens with the turkey. The very act of observing the temperature, changes it the reality of the temperature being observed. And just like your link says, I can adjust the observation, and this adjustment affects how much the reality changes, just as happens with the double slit experiment. I also discuss the double slit experiments like the one in your source about which similar claims are made.


reply posted on 29-1-2012 @ 07:50 PM by minor007
reply to post by Arbitrageur


No you are right it isnt proven but nothing else fits all other theories regarding quantum mechanics just dont cut it when the maths is done. There is no real contender for the Cpenhagen Interpretation. However this quote from the link says a bit more

And this is what the tests of Leggett’s inequality suggest. We mustnow accept that the properties we ascribe to quantum particles, such as spin-up, vertically polarized, ‘here’ and ‘there’ are properties that have no meaning except in relation to a measuring device. We can no longer assume that the properties we measure necessarily reflect or represent the properties of the particles as they really are. As Heisenberg had earlier argued:
". . . we have to remember that what we observe is not nature in itself but nature exposed to our method of questioning."
This does not mean that quantum particles are not real. What it does mean is that we can ascribe to them only an empirical reality. This is a reality that depends on our method of questioning, a reality that can be affected by the outcomes of measurements on distant particles.


So it comes down as to what Observer means?


reply posted on 29-1-2012 @ 09:14 PM by Arbitrageur
Originally posted by minor007
So it comes down as to what Observer means?
There is certainly a lot of confusion over the answer to that question, which is one of the reasons I started this thread.

Observer Effect
In physics, the term observer effect refers to changes that the act of observation will make on the phenomenon being observed. This is often the result of instruments that, by necessity, alter the state of what they measure in some manner. A commonplace example is checking the pressure in an automobile tire; this is difficult to do without letting out some of the air, thus changing the pressure. This effect can be observed in many domains of physics.
So they example they give, the difficulty in measuring the air pressure in a tire, is very analogous to my turkey temperature measuring example in the OP. There is no consciousness inferred in this definition, and there doesn't even have to be any human interaction at all, which are two of the common misconceptions.


reply posted on 30-1-2012 @ 02:23 AM by BBalazs
reply to post by minor007

I would in turn, if I can make a contribution, ask:
Can we have science without observation?
Even if it is just technology making the observation, it is technology built by the observer and hence an extension of him.
So the observers effect in this case (DSE) is most likely a poorly understood anomaly at best.
It is not an end, but a beginning for further adventure and study.
Now of these things have a consciousness then why is it not observed in atoms and such?
If it has an awareness of being observed, then why doesn't it manifest elsewhere.
Is our understanding really that perfect, or is it just that some have been waiting for such a result to fuse their faith into science?
But in the end, an effect doesn't infer awareness.
However our own minds have an uncanny ability to make up our own reality and see things that are not present, and to jump to conclusions.


Here is the definition of effect:

ef·fect   [ih-fekt] Show IPA
noun
1.
something that is produced by an agency or cause; result; consequence: Exposure to the sun had the effect of toughening his skin.

So there may be a cause behind the DSE, but saying that cause is awareness is speculation without proper investigation. It is essentially shutting the doors of science, falling down and the knees and praying to jesus, as all light has been received.
I don't think so.
The cause could be anything, if it is presuming it is properly interpreted in the first case.
It opens the vaults of possibility.
And some want to slam it shut, and blame god.
edit on 30-1-2012 by BBalazs because: (no reason given)

Pages: <<  2    3    4    5  >>    ^^TOP^^