Does Consciousness Affect Quantum Results?

Here is a video of the research:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRSBaq3vAeY

Here is a video of the research:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRSBaq3vAeY

What if you're thinking about somebody else observing the slit experiment?

The quantum world is indeed very spooky.

Anyone who says they totally understand it does not totally understand it.

Consider this:https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/02/060223084147.htm

Anyone who says they totally understand it does not totally understand it.

Thanks for that, nearly spit my mouthful of tea all over the screen.

NO ONE fully understands even a small part of quantum theory yet. It is going to take quite a number of years, experiments and advances in technology before we have more than just a vague partially proven picture based on speculation.

Spooky, I agree. I'm skeptical, but it's the quantum world, so logic is out the window. If you design an experiment to detect particles, you detect particles. If you are looking for waves, you find waves. Maybe if your experiment is looking for mind-controlled fringe amplitude, that's what you get...

The universe is trying to teach us humility.

Has the experiment been tried with more than 2 slits?3 or more?

Most of a normal wave is reflected by a slit,so what is happening outside to the rest of the wave,if it is truly a wave before it hits the slit divider?

How about a slit in a first-surface mirror?

Observe the reflected wave that does not go through the slits.

Should not other waves be seen outside of the double slit,on other slits?How do the dimensions of the slits affect the results?

How about slits of different sizes mixed on same aperture?

Oh well.. I think I will pretend to think about the results,but I will know I am only pretending,and knowing that,I will pretend that I don't know I am pretending..and knowing that...ad nuaseam.

https://www.space.com/quantum-paradox-throws-doubt-on-observed-reality.html

If a tree falls in the woods,and it is recorded but not played back,it made air molecules vibrate,but it is not "sound" until someone "hears"it.

"Time" does not exist unless it is measured,and we measure time by the counting of events,and events are the changing relationships between particles or energy levels.

There is much beyond our visible universe,but for all intents and purposes it does not exist.We cannot prove in detail that it does exist,we can only hypothesize,which again,is a man made definition.

The "Probability waveform" is actually an "Ignorance waveform".

We cannot know what we don't know until we "know" it.

If a camera is set to take a picture of the cat when the door opens,it will remain in the "Ignorance" State" until someone views the picture.

Likewise,if a video is taken of the cat when the door opens,and it is sent through a fiber optic cable 1 light year long,the waveform will not collapse until it is "seen" at the other end by the distant observer.

However,if a person is observing it at the same time, locally,for the local observer,the cat is either dear or alive,one or the other.

The observation is local to the local observer.

Reality is local.

If you are not real,you cannot argue about that.

Or go ahead,try to do it.Or even imagine doing it.

Everything is relative,IMHO.

"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." A.E.

If a man says something in a forest where no woman can hear, is he still wrong?

Yes...

He is right unless he asks his wife's opinion.

I am still curious if an experiment has been conducted to measure the part of the wave that does not go through the slit;unless the slit is exactly the size of the wave,some of the wave will not go through the slits and should be reflected away from the slit.If nothing is reflected,it implies that the wave is created within the slits.This is where the double slit descriptor breaks down IMHO.I think more study is required in this area.

That would require me to think about what you suggested,so by thinking about your suggestion, does that affect the outcome,or is the outcome already fixed before you thought about me thinking about it,or what if I never read your suggestion,would your suggestion,in and of itself affect the outcome..or ...
----"Curious-er and curious-er" said Alice.
Think about it......hmm...

All good questions. I will put my subconscious mind to work on them.

I don't know, but I doubt it.

I think this idea falls under what is called 'quantum woo." Rather than reading Fritjof Capra, Gary Zukav, Deepak Chopra, et. al., read Victor Stenger instead.

At least you admit you do not know.

One day,in the far distant future,the scientists will have climbed the mountain of knowledge,and waiting at the top will be the philosophers who ask them "What took you so long?"

My layman’s understanding (and I’m giving myself more credit then I deserve) of Quantum Mechanicals, if Consciousness doe affect quantum results, the results will be inconsistent and unreliable. And would be difficult to differentiate what happened if the results were affected by consciousness.

Trailing away for a moment, there should be a word to describe it, like Circular reasoning, but with mistakes... circular mistakes???... two wrongs make a right?... no., that’s not it...

Watch the entire video,and then we can discuss it further.

Circular reasoning?

Try this:

The sentence below is true

The sentence above is false

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If I try to fail and succeed,what have I done?...George Carlin

I ran across the video a day or two before your post. I haven't dug through the pdf document yet.

In the video, I thought it was interesting he was using audio feedback. My idea is that if there is anything to this, a subject could be trained to create the effect without knowing how he was doing it, sort of like the alpha brainwave biofeedback training that used to be popular.

https://phys.org/news/2020-10-quantum-physics-puzzle.html

Researchers crack quantum physics puzzle

If observation of an event is required to collapse it into reality,that implies that the Big Bang had to be observed by an entity before it went"Bang!"

Go figure.

Didn’t read all of the reply’s,.. as I understand as a layman, observation in itself can affect the results.

As Einstein said,reality is really an illusion.There is nothing "solid" anywhere,everything is energy.

Most of an atom is space,and the nucleus of an atom is mostly space,and everything finally resolves to vibrations.

When you strike a nail with a hammer,it is really electrical fields repelling other electrical fields,giving the illusion of a solid material.

There is a lot of energy in the universe,some of which is so concentrated that it appears to be solid to an observer,and remember, the observer is also condensed energy.

We cannot escape being part of the quantum world,and we are affected as much as by observing the cat in the box as the cat,or the particle is by being observed.

Here is a good link to all fields of science,if you have an innate sense of curiosity about the universe.,enjoy!

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYeF244yNGuFefuFKqxIAXw

Thanks,... I just watched ‘Proof of a parallel Universe’, it showed the 2 slit experiment with protons, determining if its a particle right wave, And how just observation with detectors can affect the outcome of wave interference.

God?