Double Slit Experiment

[Avi1001]

Why is that absurd?

There are different schools of thought out there.

Theistic: Consciousness is primary and matter is a product of consciousness

Atheistic: Matter is primary and consciousness is a product of matter

Unless we are at the atomic length scale or moving near the speed of light, consciousness does not affect reality. This sets our expectation for reality. An interpretation that is consistent with this reality is the low hanging fruit. Unless we find an unresolvable contradiction, we go with this interpretation.

Quantum mechanics is this contradiction.

 

[George-ananda]

Unless we are at the atomic length scale or moving near the speed of light, consciousness does not affect reality.

I think you are only 99.999... percent right.

I think humans ability to effect reality is real but extremely weak.

I read a fair amount on a study at Princeton (PEAR) that lends evidence to my belief.

People tried to control a random generator that produced 0's and 1's (lets call it Heads or Tails). If people were asked to try to mentally cause more Heads to appear they would be successful essentially 50% of the time. No shocker, right.

However what they found when they ran millions and millions of trials with a high speed random generator is that it was not exactly 50% but some tiny, tiny fraction higher that we would intuitively call insignificant. But mathematicians calculate odds against chance that for millions and millions of trials how much deviation from 50% should be expected. What they found was the odds against this being just chance were enormous. The conclusion was something real is going on that we would never be able to detect without running ridiculously large numbers of trials.

So, this argues that human consciousness has a very very weak effect on reality. And I'm not even getting into quantum theory.

 

[Avi1001]

We won't know the implications of these studies for a while. PEARs was closed in 2007:

Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research

I think you are only 99.999... percent right.

I think humans ability to effect reality is real but extremely weak.

I read a fair amount on a study at Princeton (PEAR) that lends evidence to my belief.

People tried to control a random generator that produced 0's and 1's (lets call it Heads or Tails). If people were asked to try to mentally cause more Heads to appear they would be successful essentially 50% of the time. No shocker, right.

However what they found when they ran millions and millions of trials with a high speed random generator is that it was not exactly 50% but some tiny, tiny fraction higher that we would intuitively call insignificant. But mathematicians calculate odds against chance that for millions and millions of trials how much deviation from 50% should be expected. What they found was the odds against this being just chance were enormous. The conclusion was something real is going on that we would never be able to detect without running ridiculously large numbers of trials.

So, this argues that human consciousness has a very very weak effect on reality. And I'm not even getting into quantum theory.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Consciousness is a physical phenomenon which is derived from the inner workings of the fundamental forces within our brains, so yes...it does affect reality. Whenever we see another person or object and feel a certain emotion, it is because we are making a physical connection with that person or object, an interaction. Because our eyes allow us to see things (light), those interactions happen as fast as the speed of light. As soon as we see an object, our brains have already made a physical connection to it and what follows is an instantaneous reaction or response to that object. If an object can affect us in such a manner, then we do indeed affect objects to a degree as well.
---

 

[Avi1001]

I think this is true. We also know that people interact with light. Some get depressed with lack of it. But I do not think these are quantum mechanical anomalies of the type discussed in this thread.

Consciousness is a physical phenomenon which is derived from the inner workings of the fundamental forces within our brains, so yes...it does affect reality. Whenever we see another person or object and feel a certain emotion, it is because we are making a physical connection with that person or object, an interaction. Because our eyes allow us to see things (light), those interactions happen as fast as the speed of light. As soon as we see an object, our brains have already made a physical connection to it and what follows is an instantaneous reaction or response to that object. If an object can affect us in such a manner, then we do indeed affect objects to a degree as well.
---

 

[Runewolf1973]

I think this is true. We also know that people interact with light. Some get depressed with lack of it. But I do not think these are quantum mechanical anomalies of the type discussed in this thread.

I agree, it may not be the specific aim of quantum mechanics to explain or demonstrate how consciousness works on a physical level, but ultimately all matter, by it's very nature, is subject to those same quantum level interactions. We can not separate ourselves, or our own consciousness for that matter, from this quantum reality which we are forever subject to.

 

[George-ananda]

We won't know the implications of these studies for a while. PEARs was closed in 2007:

Such a shame they closed but to comment further on that would get us on to another track; chauvinism in the scientific community.


Here's from their closing announcent you linked:

The enormous databases produced by PEAR provide clear evidence that human thought and emotion can produce measurable influences on physical reality. The researchers have also developed several theoretical models that attempt to accommodate the empirical results, which cannot be explained by any currently recognized scientific model.

"We have accomplished what we originally set out to do 28 years ago, namely to determine whether these effects are real and to identify their major correlates. There are still many important questions to be addressed that will require a coordinated interdisciplinary approach to the topic, but it is time for the next generation of scholars to take over." Jahn and Dunne said.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Being the complex, highly evolved creatures (forms) that we are, humans have the ability to interact with objects or things on a very complex level and in many different ways. Any matter-based interaction such as this, whether we realize it or not, is in fact quantum-based...derived from those quantum interactions and those fundamental forces. With this there is always an action/reaction, cause and effect.

 

[shawn001]

I think this is true. We also know that people interact with light. Some get depressed with lack of it. But I do not think these are quantum mechanical anomalies of the type discussed in this thread.

People can get depressed because of lack of light and how your eyes work and serotonin, has nothing to do with QM. Just biological issue.

 

[Runewolf1973]

People can get depressed because of lack of light and how your eyes work and serotonin, has nothing to do with QM. Just biological issue.

Although there are biological processes, the only reason those biological processes work in the first place is because of the physics involved. All biological issues...anything for that matter, can be boiled down to a matter of physics which can then be further reduced to quantum physics.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I don't have a lot of background on this experiment so excuse my ignorance -

Did they try different distances of the observers? Different devices to observe?

If it were possible to do so in time, it'd be interesting to see what would happen if the observation device was put in place at the same exact moment the particle went through the slits.

Does it work the same for sensors (non-visual)?

What would happen if there were no slits and nobody was observing? What if the observer was on the other side of the slits? It would not see them going into the slits, rather it would see them after they already been through the slits.

Etc. Etc.

I highly doubt it has anything to do with observation though, except maybe the possibility the particles moved differently (perhaps gravitated to the light-capturing device) while observed.

 

[atanu]

Very nice explanation, Viole, thank you!

Could you please share your thoughts on how this phenomenon could be applied to quantum computing, or other technological applications ?

Hello Avi

Have you however noted that whether one calls it entanglement or something else, the result is different when the experiment includes observation of the slits (concurrent with passage of photons or after the photons have passed through the slits, and irrespective of whether the observation is by human eyes or by camera) from the experiment when there is no observation at all?

 

[Avi1001]

Hello Avi

Have you however noted that whether one calls it entanglement or something else, the result is different when the experiment includes observation of the slits (concurrent with passage of photons or after the photons have passed through the slits, and irrespective of whether the observation is by human eyes or by camera) from the experiment when there is no observation at all?

Hi Atanu, I believe whether one uses a human eye or camera or spectrometer will result in different particle-like uncertainly and subsequent error, which is, of course, quite different from the wave-like result one gets from no observation. Is that consistent with your expectation ?

 

[atanu]

Hi Atanu, I believe whether one uses a human eye or camera or spectrometer will result in different particle-like uncertainly and subsequent error, which is, of course, quite different from the wave-like result one gets from no observation. Is that consistent with your expectation ?

Slightly more. It's not error per se. In case of observation the outcome is always of particle nature. Else, unobserved, the wave.

I will call attention to the short conclusions of Wheeler's 'Delayed choice' and Aspects'Paired Photons' experiments, shown above, to again emphasise that the system is one, that the communication mechanism is not known, and that the differences in the intentional contents of the systems seem to influence the results.

 

[steeltoes]

In short: When scientists (instruments of course) watch a particle pass through two slits, the particle goes through one slit or the other. If a person doesn't watch it, it acts like a wave and can go through both slits simultaneously.

How is this explained by physicists?

An electron appears as a wave when measured with instrument-1.

An electron appears as a particle when measured with instrument-2.

 

[atanu]

An electron appears as a wave when measured with instrument-1.

An electron appears as a particle when measured with instrument-2.

I like this.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Consciousness is a physical phenomenon which is derived from the inner workings of the fundamental forces within our brains, so yes...it does affect reality. Whenever we see another person or object and feel a certain emotion, it is because we are making a physical connection with that person or object, an interaction. Because our eyes allow us to see things (light), those interactions happen as fast as the speed of light. As soon as we see an object, our brains have already made a physical connection to it and what follows is an instantaneous reaction or response to that object. If an object can affect us in such a manner, then we do indeed affect objects to a degree as well.
---

Unfortunately our brains aren't as fast as light what your brain actually makes connections with is something in the past. Albeit the past only a few seconds ago, but that's still pretty impressive. Essentially everything that you see has already happened and isn't actually happening while you see it. The difference is so small though that it doesn't matter.

I don't think quantum physics reveals some sort of existence of consciousness but proves that our notions of our world were vastly inferior to how great it actually is.

 

[ruffen]

Quantum Physics Woo:

[youtube]8DGgvE6hLAU[/youtube]

The consciousness does not interact with the particle. But it is impossible to "see" where a particle goes without physically interacting with it and disturbing it. It's really not magic.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Unfortunately our brains aren't as fast as light what your brain actually makes connections with is something in the past. Albeit the past only a few seconds ago, but that's still pretty impressive. Essentially everything that you see has already happened and isn't actually happening while you see it. The difference is so small though that it doesn't matter.

I don't think quantum physics reveals some sort of existence of consciousness but proves that our notions of our world were vastly inferior to how great it actually is.

In regards to the speed of light thing, I was just trying demonstrate that the interaction takes place about as fast as we see it. It is still a physical interaction, so I agree, doesn't really matter.

I agree with the second point you make. In fact, I believe that even our own consciousness is an illusion created by chemical interactions in our brains. There is no "consciousness", only interactions. Some interactions are more complex than others giving us that illusion or feeling of being more aware. We are just matter changing form like anything else.

 

[atanu]

Quantum Physics Woo:

[youtube]8DGgvE6hLAU[/youtube]

The consciousness does not interact with the particle. But it is impossible to "see" where a particle goes without physically interacting with it and disturbing it. It's really not magic.

That is not point, however.