Continuation of energy concept!

[walkntune]

Go even smaller, and something is either "in the dark" or completely knocked off course by a single photon. Once we hit that scale anything we use to observe it will influence it. This is how the "observer" influences quantum phenomena - and the issue is purely mechanical.

 

We thus call it the "observer problem" because no matter what tool we pull out to try and measure it with the end result is the same: the tool has too large of an impact on the phenomena observed to give us any information on how it would behave if we had not tried to observe it. When you use a volt meter to measure current, the tweaking of the needle changes the current, but the disturbance is generally too small to effect the observation or can be accounted for. When the needle of a compass indicates the presence of a magnetic field, it effects the field it is responding to.

 

This sounds like it could be reasonable explanation.

It seems like it just effects the wave though and not the particle structure which is a little odd.

[mooeypoo]

This sounds like it could be reasonable explanation.

It seems like it just effects the wave though and not the particle structure which is a little odd.

That's not true, this affects the photon itself, aswell. In fact, I am currently writing a paper about quantum entanglement; split superimposed photons that are entangled are under this effect - observation of one photon instantaneously defines the state of the other. "Spin" would define polarization, but photons can also be entangled in other free-space aspects that might influence other properties, not just polarization.

 

The entire idea with properties being defined at the moment of observation is on of the problems Einstein had with quantum mechanics.

 

Check out EPR paradox, Bell's inequality and Einstein-Bohr Debates.

 

And, of course, photon entanglement.

 

~moo

[walkntune]

That's not true, this affects the photon itself, aswell. In fact, I am currently writing a paper about quantum entanglement; split superimposed photons that are entangled are under this effect - observation of one photon instantaneously defines the state of the other. "Spin" would define polarization, but photons can also be entangled in other free-space aspects that might influence other properties, not just polarization.

From what i understand they can be on opposite ends of the universe and still have this effect. Is this true?

[mooeypoo]

From what i understand they can be on opposite ends of the universe and still have this effect. Is this true?

Theoretically, yes, entanglement seems to ignore distances. I admit I don't know enough about it yet to give you a proper explanation.

 

In any case, despite distance, emotion, belief or thought does *not* affect the particles. That much is quite proven.

[walkntune]

In any case, despite distance, emotion, belief or thought does *not* affect the particles. That much is quite proven.

 

I am still searching for experiments verifying the act of knowing and not knowing specific outcomes not effecting the particles or the waves. Do you have any links to such experiments?

[mooeypoo]

Check out Bell's inequality (link above, and search the net). It showed there's no need for any "hidden variables" for the predictions of Quantum Mechanics, which essentially shows that observation dictates the state of the particle rather than reveals a predefined one.

[walkntune]

Sorry I posted in the wrong forum

[RedSunshine]

More importantly,

"Dammit. Monte Carlo analysis. I should have thought of that."