About This Blog

I love science. In particular, I love quantum physics. The work of Bell, Bohr, Schrodinger, Heisenberg, Dirac, Bohm, de Broglie, Wheeler, Eddington, von Neumann, Wigner, DeWitt, Feynman, Penrose (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.

My background and interest in the fields of biology, psychology, quantum physics, philosophy and the arts inspire me to inspire others by extending the principles of quantum physics into a new understanding of consciousness. In the interest of examining the aforementioned elephant, learning about him, and perhaps even (eventually) becoming mahouts, I welcome you to The Observer Effect.

Kelly Neill

59 Responses to “About This Blog”

  1. 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).

  2. 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.

  3. 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).

  4. 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….

  5. 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 …

  6. 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….

  7. 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????

    • There is little doubt that time travel is a theoretical, though not likely a practical, possibility (at least not with any foreseeable technology). The problem is that matter decays over time, and that decay can’t be reversed. So there won’t be anything left to see once you get there.

      • Re:”there won’t be anything left to see once you get there.” Would you mind expounding on that a bit? I am curious about that conclusion.

  8. 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.

  9. 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


  10. Just passing by. Btw, your website has great content!

  11. 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???

  12. 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.”


  13. 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….

  14. 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.

  15. 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…

  16. 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…;)

  17. Hello All,
    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. 🙂 Maybe an honest attempt to describe the intricate commonalities of all observers is in order, what do you say?

  18. 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):


    • 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

  19. Shadows in a cave of reality. With all of us making hand-puppets. Ha!

    Thanks for the swim 😛

  20. 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.

  21. 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?

  22. 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.

  23. 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:).

  24. Your English is fine (and it certainly beats the hell out of my Slovak!).

    Thanks for stopping by and for the recommendation.

  25. 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.

  26. Thank you, Dalton.
    And welcome.

  27. 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! 🙂

  28. 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.

  29. 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.

  30. Thank you, Tony.
    Very much.

  31. 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.

  32. Thank you, Richard, and welcome!

    I appreciate your perspective.

  33. 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…

  34. 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

  35. Galileo discovered that light and heavy objects fall at the same speed. The velocity of free fall does not depend on the mass of the falling body. So what you relay know is that you previously assumed that heavy things fall faster.

    What would have happened if Galileo was a yogi?

    question – what is not proved but is known? what do you know that has not been proved.


  36. Ok…have made a quick looksee again of The Observer Effect again and am devoting next week as absorption time for same. WOW! …is all I can say for the moment. I have seen Whet The Bleep…and have read all of the debunkification and was quite amazed as well to endure the comments from my roomate about the movie. My personal journey began with Fritjof Capra, Marilyn Ferguson and Bucky Fuller back in the late seventies and early eighties (just after putting down Castaneda’s stuff). And am glad to be separate from the mind-controlled masses. However, with that said, I am not a separatist…how can we get these lemmings on board?

    • Well, as John Wheeler once quipped, “There is no ‘out there’ out there.” Which is to say that we are those lemmings.
      Goo goo ga joob. 😉

      More and more it seems to me that the best foot forward when faced with that which seems negative is to be — and observe — the change we wish to see in the world.

      • We(?) are present, aware and being…consciousness is universe…obsearver intervenes and intrudes(?)?

        Another spotless mind is soiled again!

  37. As Feynman once said, “… [a] universe – atoms with curiosity – that looks at itself and wonders why it wonders.”


  38. Our website, Science.org, is an informational database and online news publication for anything and everything related to science and technology.

    We recently polled our website users about the online resources they use to find important science information and stay up-to-date regarding news in the fields of Astronomy, Biology, Chemistry, Geology, Microbiology and Physical Science. A majority of our users have selected your blog, theobservereffect.com, as an excellent source for both Physics and Space information.

    We have reviewed your blog and must say we absolutely love the information you have made available to the public. In recognition of your efforts, our research team has elected your blog to be one of Science.org’s Top Science Blogs and awarded you a Top Science Blogs Award banner.

  39. More and more it seems to me that the best foot forward when faced with that which seems negative is to be — and observe — the change we wish to see in the world”

    summed up perfectly, all of the hearts desire is found in this paradigm. be, do, have, I like yours better.

  40. What a wonderful blog.

    “examine the elephant” reminds me of a story I once heard: http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~rywang/berkeley/258/parable.html

    A number of disciples went to the Buddha and said, “Sir, there are living here in Savatthi many wandering hermits and scholars who indulge in constant dispute, some saying that the world is infinite and eternal and others that it is finite and not eternal, some saying that the soul dies with the body and others that it lives on forever, and so forth. What, Sir, would you say concerning them?”

    The Buddha answered, “Once upon a time there was a certain raja who called to his servant and said, ‘Come, good fellow, go and gather together in one place all the men of Savatthi who were born blind… and show them an elephant.’ ‘Very good, sire,’ replied the servant, and he did as he was told. He said to the blind men assembled there, ‘Here is an elephant,’ and to one man he presented the head of the elephant, to another its ears, to another a tusk, to another the trunk, the foot, back, tail, and tuft of the tail, saying to each one that that was the elephant.

    “When the blind men had felt the elephant, the raja went to each of them and said to each, ‘Well, blind man, have you seen the elephant? Tell me, what sort of thing is an elephant?’

    “Thereupon the men who were presented with the head answered, ‘Sire, an elephant is like a pot.’ And the men who had observed the ear replied, ‘An elephant is like a winnowing basket.’ Those who had been presented with a tusk said it was a ploughshare. Those who knew only the trunk said it was a plough; others said the body was a grainery; the foot, a pillar; the back, a mortar; the tail, a pestle, the tuft of the tail, a brush.

    “Then they began to quarrel, shouting, ‘Yes it is!’ ‘No, it is not!’ ‘An elephant is not that!’ ‘Yes, it’s like that!’ and so on, till they came to blows over the matter.

    “Brethren, the raja was delighted with the scene.

    “Just so are these preachers and scholars holding various views blind and unseeing…. In their ignorance they are by nature quarrelsome, wrangling, and disputatious, each maintaining reality is thus and thus.”

    Then the Buddha rendered this meaning by uttering this verse of uplift,

    O how they cling and wrangle, some who claim
    For preacher and monk the honored name!
    For, quarreling, each to his view they cling.
    Such folk see only one side of a thing.

    Jainism and Buddhism. Udana 68-69:
    Parable of the Blind Men and the Elephant

  41. Hey, I found your blog while searching on Google your post looks very interesting for me. I will add a backlink and bookmark your site. Keep up the good work!

    I’m Out! 🙂

  42. Just a thought on the possibility of the LoA being reconcilable with quantum physics. A bottle of well shaken Italian dressing consists of one glob of ‘matter’-perhaps comparable to our physical(or non-physical) Universe. Stop the agitation of ingredients and like attracts like-herbs settle on the bottom, then vinegar, with oil on top. All of this happens without accessing any “out there.” Just a thought. Until we know everything, it is impossible to assume we truly know anything.

  43. Hi Kelly,

    Glad to know I am not the only one trying to put it all together to understand how the world works. Have you heard that our beliefs would be converted into vibrations and sent by the heart to the universe and this vibration would collapse the wave function that creates the world around us? I have heard about the Observer effect but didn’t learn anywhere how our consciousness would make this collapse of the wave function (double slit experiment).

    Anyway, I have a forum where we discuss weird stuff too mostly on the Law of Attraction and how and while searching on this toopic, I find other weird things like Dr. Bruce Lipton’s theory that our beliefs would have an effect on our cells so if we learn to master how to imnplant new beliefs in our Subconscious Mind/Heart then we can finally change our world around us.



  44. Can somebody tell me where I can find respected, scientific articles on whether, or to what extent, one can affect something else by doing nothing, e.g., by merely living or existing? Another way you could think about this is what is the minimum one has to do, e.g., observation, to affect an other thing in a manner that exceeds how one affects that other thing by merely existing. But I am looking for articles that discuss either or both. Thanks.


  45. Hi Kelly. Just happened to stumble upon this blog after doing some research on “The double slit experiment”. I have always had an interest in physics and I am really intrigued by the observer effect. Does this suggest an intelligence,? multiple universes,? or what? Very interesting.

    • Good questions, Chuck.
      I think it suggests that the atoms which make up Chuck and Kelly and anyone else asking such questions are a way of the universe asking itself about itself. 😉

  46. I can’t. I am not a scientist or philosopher. I read something in a magazine once that sort of made sense. I think it was Discover or American Scientific. As I understood it, and using a lay person’s language to explain what I think I understood (or would you say “obseved”), you can go back in time, but the matter decays and you can’t reverse it. I guess it would depend on how far back you go and how far away in space the matter is. For example, assume you go 10 decillion years (I exaggerate on purpose to illustrate). Presumably, every bit of matter would have decayed by the time you embark on your time travel. In contrast, go back 100 years to, for example, a star. I guess you would see the star not as it was 100 years ago, but as it is now?

    I heard that one scientist or philosopher said time is just one damn thing after another. If so, then I guess going back in time just means going “somewhere” before the things that came after it. But the “things” change over time, and the “travel” won’t reverse that change.

    I don’t know, honestly. But my initial statement sounded good didn’t it? I just came on this site because I was looking for some references.

    • The laws of quantum physics are time symmetric; they work precisely the same “backward” or “forward.” By that, there is no rule in quantum physics which forbids travel back in time.

      Regarding irreversibility: Check out this resolution of Loschmidt’s paradox: http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v59/i1/p10_1

      Regarding entropy: There is a theory which suggests that entropy can decrease for certain phenomena, when correlated with an observer, but these phenomena won’t leave any information of their having happened. In other words, we don’t observe decreased entropy because all evidence from decreased entropy processes is erased when correlations are removed from the system. Article here: http://physics.aps.org/story/v24/st7

  47. So glad I found your site. It is beautiful and informative. Just finished reading Robert Lanza’s books and about to read them again. I hope to see new posts on your site that will broaden my knowledge.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: