Comments on: The Most Beautiful Experiment

By: theobservereffect

theobservereffect — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 22:48:30 +0000

It throws materialism and determinism out of the “reality” question, because it demonstrates that “reality” exists solely as waves of information (possibilities) until we observe it in some way.

In terms of “practicality,” this means that we create reality by observing it.

By: cb

cb — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 21:57:49 +0000

What could be the possible implication of this in ‘real life’ i.e in all practicality?

By: theobservereffect

theobservereffect — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 20:08:29 +0000

Thank you, Ted.
I have had similar experiences using healing thoughts with both animals and people in my own life.
It’s great to know that someone else is observing observation in a similar fashion.

By: Ted Moomaw

Ted Moomaw — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 08:12:43 +0000

Has anyone that you know of conducted the experiment to alter the observed effect with intent, rather than observing, actually manipulating the outcome by thought?

I was a chiropractor for horses, and on the journey of life figured out how to adjust, or heal by thought.

I realized that some of the misalignments of certain joints, particularly the Jaw, were being caused by my own observations, which eventually turned into a very common malady.

When I realized that I had created this outcome, I then changed my thought about this particular mis-alignment, afterwards, it has been a rare ocourence.

I guess now I would be considered a non observer to this particular joint.

We are given such a gift, so simple, that it seems phenomenally difficult.

My little story here is what prompts my question about the experiment.

Thank you, Love your work here and look forward to watching your youtube videos
Ted

By: theobservereffect

theobservereffect — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 15:24:47 +0000

Thanks for your comment. If you are interested, I have a YouTube channel dedicated to exploring the Observer Effect, featuring over 230 videos at the present time (and I am always adding more!).

You can visit my channel at http://www.youtube.com/kellyneill

By: Calgary Painters

Calgary Painters — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 06:21:44 +0000

I had trouble understanding this experiment at first, but on YouTube there is a cartoon like video from Fred A Wolf (Dr Quantum) than explained it perfectly. It was the understanding of this experiment and how consciousness plays such an active role in our realities that has me so turned on to QP. Love the site!

By: theobservereffect

theobservereffect — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 15:26:24 +0000

You’re using reductionism to argue in favor of pluralism — neither of which can be reconciled with quantum theory. Although the conclusions you have drawn from your model are (superficially) intuitive, it is through deeper analysis that principles such as entanglement and complementarity have been uncovered — and, thus, the case for emergence/synergy successfully established.

Even macro-cosmically speaking (in this case, bullets and brain spatter), reductionism does not work within the ontological framework of QT, as uncertainties at the micro level are increased.

To quote Ernest Gellner, “Reductionism is rooted not in the nature of things, but in our ideal of explanation.”

By: harry

harry — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 08:29:17 +0000

what about the reductionist approach? suppose I eliminate one intelligent being after another…when I finally eliminate myself, will the universe ‘as we know it’ still exist? will the bullet which blew my brain, continue to follow a newtonian trajectory? I think yes.

By: theobservereffect

theobservereffect — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 20:11:48 +0000

If you’d like to conduct the original experiment yourself, check out http://www.cavendishscience.org/phys/tyoung/tyoung.htm

By: theobservereffect

theobservereffect — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 03:29:35 +0000

Re: Details: There have been numerous double-slit experiments carried out since the early nineteenth century — using light, neutrons, atoms, electrons, and even molecules as large as carbon-60 and carbon-70. Some were measured by human observers, and some recorded by detectors which were then observed by human observers — who, I might add, also conceived and built the detectors specifically for the purpose of later observation. So, while a real-time human observer is not needed for the experiment itself, it nevertheless holds that a detector’s results are observed, at some point, by a human. And so the effect occurs.

In QT circles, this phenomenon is known as the “measurement problem.” It’s also an ontological dilemma for many people. To my thinking, it seems a simple enough fact that everything we know about anything in this universe is a direct result of observation, for how could we “know” anything otherwise? From that perspective, it also makes sense that an observer (like, for instance, a human) will have an effect on any observable with which it interacts (like, for instance, a photon).

To quote one of my favorite physicists, Erwin Schrodinger, “Subject and object are only one. The barrier between them cannot be said to have broken down as a result of recent experience in the physical sciences, for this barrier does not exist.”

By: Brandon

Brandon — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 01:17:40 +0000

I am trying to figure out the truth about the current understanding of quantum physics. From my understanding nothing can be measured without at some level interfering with what is being measured. Do you know the details of how they measured which slit the photon goes through and how it may interfere with the behavior of the photon? Thanks.