About This Blog
I love science. In particular, I love quantum physics. The work of Bell, Bohr, Schrodinger, Heisenberg, Dirac, Bohm, DeBroglie, Feynman, Wheeler, DeWitt, Von Neumann, Wigner, Penrose, Everett (and others) excites and inspires me. Their experiments raise an open question regarding the nature of existence; their findings allude to the role of consciousness in the construct of reality. Quantum theory proves that it is the act of observation itself that causes a wave function to collapse out of either/or uncertainty into what we experience as a particular reality… My “reality.” Your “reality.” Everybody’s “reality.”
As Niels Bohr once famously remarked, “Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it.”
Quantum physics is shocking, both scientifically and philosophically. The idea that the conscious act of observation creates everything we once considered apparent is a challenge to our prevailing perspective as a species. There is no aspect of life-as-we-know-it that will remain unchanged as a result of recognizing — and living in the knowledge of — this basic truth. Though many scientists have understandably avoided public discourse on the mystical implications of the observer effect, it is, indeed, the elephant in the room. It cannot be ignored. Theories of everything come and go (and come and go again); the observer effect remains fundamental to the formulation of those theories and indispensable to our understanding of the universe.
In the hope of furthering this understanding, I invite you, the interested reader, to participate in the development of this blog — to help create a space where we might examine the aforementioned elephant, learn about him, and perhaps even (eventually) become mahouts. Relevant posts on the topics of quantum physics, consciousness, health, human potential, philosophy, sociology, and psi are welcome and encouraged.
Sincerely,
Kelly Neill
Interesting blog. You should check out quantiki.org and some of the other sites I link to on my blog for some introductory as well as more advanced material on quantum mechanics. As heretical as it is in my profession, I will admit to often wondering if non-locality might explain some unusual phenomena in the world, but I caution that there is no evidence for it yet. In particular, non-locality has been demonstrated for a few particles and/or beams of particles, but nothing seriously macroscopic (at least in the sense needed for some of these unusual phenomena) has yet been achieved. This is partly due to limitations on the scalability of quantum processes – essentially, the larger the system the more classical it looks. In addition, there is the problem of decoherence which limits the distances over which entanglement can be maintained (the current record I think stands at around 77 miles or so).
Thank you for your comment, Ian, and your advice. I visit quantiki frequently (and, in fact, link to it on my “An Introduction To Quantum Physics” page). It’s a great resource.
Re: Macrocosmic nonlocality: I understand your call for caution. There is serious, multi-disciplinary (read: heretical) research on this subject; much of the work challenges conventional methodology and so the evidence is open to interpretation. I look to Penrose, Hameroff, Laszlo, Gazdag, Popp, Radin, et al, and keep an open mind… The history of science informs me that great ideas are often viewed as so much crap before they become widely accepted as credible and, eventually, indispensable.
That said, I will try my damnedest to allow the science itself to ask (and, perhaps, answer) the questions presented here, knowing full well that my enthusiasm (meddling) may get me into trouble from time to time.
I read your cv, btw, and I certainly didn’t “fall asleep”! Impressive, sir. And your blog is fabulous. I very much appreciate your insights as a physicist, researcher and instructor — not to mention the link to The Observer Effect. Thank you.
Glad you didn’t fall asleep to my CV. It does serve as a promising alternative to No-Doze for some people. Anyway, indeed there is quite a bit of multi-disciplinary research in this area. I know a few years back Max Tegmark approached the question from the standpoint of whether quantum mechanics could be invoked when studying neuron firing in the brain (or something like that). Max’s result was negative, but there have been other positive results from different calculations. The Quantum Pontiff (http://scienceblogs.com/pontiff/) had a discussion a long time ago about such things but I can’t find it at the moment which is a bummer since it had links to several papers (his blog moved and it may have gotten lost in the move).
Based on your research and interests in Quantum Physics…which cell phone manufacturer do think is the best, in this dimension and beyond? Unfortunately, it would have been very helpful if in the TV show Quantum Leap documenting Dr. Sam Beckett’s leaps if such information would have had been revealed regarding the company that manufactured Al’s communicator, or at least its parts. So what do you think? And do you think such a communicator would be affected based if one traveled back in time or in the future? In future travel would GSM or HSDA be helpful, as it is likely the xenophobic technology of Verizon would not assist us, as it generally lacks truly compatible communicative abilities outside the USA. And if traveling back in time, perhaps prior to Hedy Lamar’s work on cellular technology or even earlier considering the modern mathematical calculations of Ada Byron, (but let us not digress to the Aztecs or Mayans rough attempts that some view as science and others art) or would two cans a well made string be sufficient, and then we must ask who is manufacturing the cans as well as the string. So simply asked based on where one would dwell in the time continuum what cell phone or communication device would you use? But a far more interesting question would be…who would you call, and if you watched your phone while it rung would it take longer for the recipient to answer or would your call be dropped….
I think if one traveled back in time to October 2003 and bought one share of Verizon stock for $31, then traveled even further back in time to July 2000 to sell that share for $55, then traveled forward in time to May 2008 with the profit, one would have enough money for a quarter tank of gas. One could then drive to a Verizon store and bitch out the hired help about GSM to no avail. Lamarr’s spread-spectrum brilliance aside, she was positively sassy in “Samson and Delilah.” Ball Corporation is manufacturing most of the cans. The string is probably from China.
And to answer the far more interesting question: I would call myself with the aforementioned stock tip. The call would be dropped, just as I am in the middle of a …
Yes, Ms. Lamarr was positively sassy amongst other qualities that are obvious to the naked eye…her famous quote clearly tells us she was one of us… “Films have a certain place in a certain time period. Technology is forever.” I believe I must go back to work on my time machine….
OK…saw these psychics on a talk show (let alone I was watching CNN today) who state they are the proof of physics…able to travel through space time and death…now not that I think death is a destination, nor have I received a Wish You Were Here postcard, but if one were to go into the future does your travel “run with the land” or “the person” so do you just see hypothetically California in the year 3002 or could you follow an individual into the afterlife? And if I touch an iguana, or any pet anything for that matter, and get a strange gamey taste of chicken in my mouth does this mean I will eat this animal in the future, …. do you dare shake a stranger’s or friend’s hand and possibly taste the future????
If you want to learn to time travel, Fred Alan Wolf Ph.D. has a neat audio program called “Dr. Quantum’s Do It Yourself Time Travel”. For those of you who haven’t heard of Dr. Wolf, he makes for exciting reading and listening. As a quantum physicist, he probably knows more about the scientific explanation of consciousness than most. I can heartily recommend any of his books and audio programs.
How wonderfully put Kelly! I just stumbled on your blog after writing from a very similar perspective on my own blog. I would love your thoughts on it. Similar to yours, my blog is intended to cover much of the same things you’ve stated above so beautifully, and from an ‘everyday language’ approach. The mystical/spiritual implictions are incredibly enlightening. I look forward to more correspondence with you as well as reading more of your work here. Thank you for sharing your insights! – Patrick Darling
http://phdarling.wordpress.com/2009/01/31/projecting-reality-at-the-speed-of-thought/
Just passing by. Btw, your website has great content!
Hi Kelly,
Met you on Twitter, then found this blog – which I have RSS’d…
Your Youtube channel is AMAZING! What a wealth of resources – you know I subscribed, and thank you very much. How did you do so much in such a short time???
Thank you, Ilana! I very much appreciate you dropping by and commenting here… As for putting things together in a relatively short time, I think it was Thoreau who said: “Time is but the stream I go a-fishing in.”
It is so nice to be here..or anywhere* for that matter *….saw your youtube the clarity was greatly appreciated…I showed it to my girlfriend and she told me she also liked the movie “what the bleep” (which I had no clue she had seen, and for a moment I thought there might be a glimmer of hope) then she proceeded to tell me her views and her favorite parts of the film…and I thought based on the observer effect if I did not look at her would she stop talking alas it did not work, then I wondered of I imagined she was someone else might she change ever so slightly, changing my reality… this too failed…it appears the laws of attraction in this case is clearly based on the physical effect….
Well, as I understand it, the so-called “law of attraction” is a philosophical perspective which presumes there is an “out there” from which to attract. Such a “law” would actually run contrary to physics, because, according to quantum theory, there is no “out there.”
Re: your girlfriend’s incessant talking: I suggest sexual intercourse instead, if she is amenable. In a quantum universe, it’s a bit like masturbating, but what the heck…
From a neutrino physics perspective the LOA is quite in line with physics don’t you think? If you believe that the neutrino particle travels from other galaxies, thru our sun and into us. Then why can’t we simply be a part of all (these neutrinos) that we attract? Hmmm.
Ditto, Kelly!
You are the only other person I know of who sees that the LoA is contrary to physics, being based on the belief in “separation” or “out there” as you called it. I continue to point this out in my blogs and website, but you put it so eloquently! Thanks again…
Dear Abby (kelly):
personally I do not believe the LOA hype, but simply I am just trying to determine why on earth I am listening to this incessant talking, perhaps it is because she is amenable, and I still have faith in the observer effect that maybe if I squint my eyes, blink, look away…perhaps the outcome will change…but my luck I will have left a penny in my pocket…I think perhaps it is time to end this experiment…hope you are enjoying your quantum universe…;)
Hello All,
Maybe an honest attempt to describe the intricate commonalities of all observers is in order, what do you say?
Long time listener, first time caller. Big fan. Anyhoo… Maybe the effects of philosophical physics (e.g. reflection upon the described mechanics of LoA) are harder to measure, with the only tool being the observer… infinite perspectives.
Infinite perspectives, perhaps.
A single unifying field, most definitely. Have you ever seen the example using a fish aquarium?
It’s featured here (skip to 5:19 to get to it):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnL0f8EQIhU
Hi Kelly, love you site.
The dopler effect with light gets to the heart of this discussion within second while also showing that the Akashic Field is both pervasive and neutral from space and time.
Regards Marc
Shadows in a cave of reality. With all of us making hand-puppets. Ha!
Thanks for the swim
Finally,without knowing why,after years of searching and finding…just sometimes,the book I AM THAT from Nisargadatta M.fell in my hands.
Real wisdom touching my heart… the non dual approach.
Finally ,without knowing why,your youtube channel,pop up on my screen.
The amazing thing for me is that the Quantum Theory completly confirm Nisargadatta´s words.
What else can I say?
What is left but to live it?…
Thank you once again.
When light leaves a distant star x number of light years away, that light was emitted from particles in that star. Doesn’t that light tell the exact position of those particles in theory?
We do not see those particles in their “true” or “absolute” place (I use quotes because the question assumes a classical perspective). Two concepts come into play specifically here: The Doppler Effect and the (relativistic) aberration of light.
The movement of light waves emitted from a distant star results in a change in the frequency of the wave motion when there is relative motion between the source of the waves and the observer. This is known as a Doppler Shift.
The aberration of light informs us that the apparent position of the star’s emitted light depends on the transverse aspect of the observer’s velocity. According to special relativity, aberration of light can boundlessly increase, so that light rays arriving from any direction other than directly opposite to the direction of motion are seen to approach a point directly in front of the moving observer.
Hi, I am 17 years old and Iam from Slovakia and this website is great. I interesting in power of thoughts and how conciouss create our reality. It is amazing.I recommend else one writer: Vadim Zeland and his teory Transurfing.Ehhh, my english is bad:), but I learn:).
Your English is fine (and it certainly beats the hell out of my Slovak!).
Thanks for stopping by and for the recommendation.
I went outside to think about what words to say here, and as I was thinking, a beautiful small feather came gently floating down from the sky. At first I thought it was from a bird but soon realized it was from the flight of an Angel. Thoughts are stimulated by your wonderful blog, so happy to find you.
Thank you, Dalton.
And welcome.
Examination of the observer effect could possibly lead to a grand unified theory based upon information exchange in which all quanta function as both codependent and independent state machines.
To impart or recieve information the quantum space must also process the information which in turn modifies it’s state and then pass the information on. These state changes become time. The machine itself has a physical limit to its rate of change, like a CPU that can only process at XX mips, when the processing limit is exceeded then reality must slow down, and everything that depends upon it’s result is also affected. From this model, relative time dilation, black holes, bending of light, even gravity could be explained as codependents waiting for information as the complexity becomes too much to process. It is no longer gravity that bends light, but limited processing capacity and propagation limitations. The fact that gravity is present when light bends, becomes merely a coincidence. Intuition tells me that under this model string theory can co-exist with relativity, if the machines were to have the resonant characteristic of strings. Newtonian balls seem a perfect example of the model, where each ball is it’s own state machine, observer, dependent, information processor and propagator.
The thing to ponder then is why would this information co-dependency create an attraction? And if we can work that out.. then the grand unified theory might fix a whole lot of bad marriages!
Who *are* you? First you wow me on my YouTube channel’s comboxes, now this.
I believe that state changes are, indeed, time, which is observer-based and relative. Bravo for your observation regarding that!
I further submit to you that the “processing limitations” of which you write are likewise observer-based, and that the concept of “attraction” presumes an “out there,” which isn’t really there: that time, processing limitations, and “out there” are constructs/projections of consciousness… Intuitive concepts? Yes, but then so is the notion that our planet is stationary (barring one too many martinis, anyway).
Maybe that is the hardest thing we’re going to have to wrap our human heads around: that observation does not reflect an external reality, but creates it, every step of the way.
Hi Kelly, I was just a wandering spirit who stumbled upon your little corner of the universe and thought.. ‘WOW! Now there’s something very special and wonderful going on here’.
You make me think and marvel, thought I’d return the favour.
So rock on, and keep sharing and reflecting your most beautiful soul.
Now I’m an observer transformed.
Thank you, Tony.
Very much.
This is a very nice blog. Hope it stays around for a long time. I am a sociologist (by training if not by profession) and have long studied the issue of the observer effect and efforts to formally study it.
Over the years I have been struck by the absolute wall that exists between physics researchers who shy away from consciousness studies and psychologists and sociologists who shy away from quantum mechanics. This area of study is truly a no-man’s land populated by a very small population of researchers: Helmut Schmidt, the late Reima Kampmann, and the late “neodissociationist” theorist/clinical psychologist EI Hilgard. In 1978 Hilgard himself discovered the entity now known as the “hidden observer” and somewhat later Finnish psychologist Reima Kampman pushed further by hypnotising subjects all over Finland and (upon eliciting the “Hidden Observer”) asked one question: “Who are you?”
Reportedly (to me, anyway) the answer was uniformly the same: “I am soul.”
Back in 1994, while researching a book, I contacted Helmut Schmidt–who was then living in New Mexico–and I asked him: what does retrocausation suggest? “Well,” he said “either the possibility that causation can travel from future to the past. . .or that the universe is multiple . . .i.e. manyworlds.
So, yes, I think explanation of the observer effect will ultimately answer our questions about how the universe ticks. But I also think those answers will tell us a lot about how we fit into this system. I personally don’t believe that the world is created by thought, but that the thought may exist simultaneously over a manyworld track. At some point, an experiment will be developed that will limit the rival possibilities.
Thank you, Richard, and welcome!
I appreciate your perspective.
Walked into a building today…in which I had never entered…I had “deja vu”…down to a person walking by me asking the time, and waiting for an elevator (but I aksed someone and took the steps as I wanted to break pattern or did I break the pattern or was I to take the stairs?) so deja vu? so had I been there before ? or did I foresee that I would in some sub conscious form and finally showed up at the destination I created…I have to go get a drink I think I am going to be thirsty…
Impeccable website.
It seems clear that the only universe we experience is the “internal model”, as updated (in waking state) with sensory (thought included) information (already highly processed data.) We may then imagine that the model reflects “something” outside of the data processing system (”I”), which is true enough to keep body and soul together until the kids graduate college (usually.) What’s “out there”? The model’s best guess from “in here” is, in the model, what’s out there.
Experiments always imply an observer. Actually, a proposer, an observer and a concluder. Electron interactions with, say, a proton don’t seem to have required any observer apart from themselves in order for hydrogen to form.
Still puzzling, though, so puzzle forth!
Later, after more looking, learning & reflecting, maybe something worth saying will get said.
Ciao, Paul