I've never really understood the implications of this. Is this suggesting that the act of viewing something causes it to behave differently? Would love for someone to explain what this means?

That's exactly what it means. The observer affects the results. Look up heisenberg uncertainty principle, quantum wave function, shrodingers cat or simply quantum mechanics on wikipedia for more.

quantum mechanics, nonlocality, coherent superpositions and the whole notion of probability itself are really diificult concepts to grasp.

Check this out:

http://nowscape.com/godsdebris.pdf

for an entertaining and thought provoking explanation of probability, written by the creator of Dilbert!!

JBArk

thats not exactly true AFAIK, jbark

from what I understand that was only one earlier interpretation of the collapse of the wave function. IIRC other experiments show that it is BOTH at the same time, not exactly dependent of the observer. The idea was that, if for example one would send ONE photon to pass through the double slit experiment, it would pass by both holes at the same time (!!), so it would have to have been a particle (since it was only one photon sent) and then interacted with itself as a wave through both holes later on! So reality gets even weirder

I think the 'observer-based' universe is misinterpreted by the 'all-is-relative, The Secret, you-make-your-world' kind of crowd and is used to justify a lot of new age babble. (im not saying you are, btw)

Reality never ceases to amaze me. Existence is a mistery

And keep in mind that the observer in these experiments isn’t a human being. It is a measuring device of some sort – a machine.

Endlessness:

According to a poll at a Quantum Mechanics workshop in 1997[7], the Copenhagen interpretation is the most widely-accepted specific interpretation of quantum mechanics, followed by the many-worlds interpretation.[8] Although current trends show substantial competition from alternative interpretations, throughout much of the twentieth century the Copenhagen interpretation had strong acceptance among physicists. Astrophysicist and science writer John Gribbin describes it as having fallen from primacy after the 1980s.[9]
wikipedia

so while other interpretations exist, the one i described is still widely accepted. And a lot of what you describe is covered in the video from the OP .

I agree that the interpretations of quantum theory have spawned a slew of questionable to quacky theories, but sometimes they can inspire and lead to new avenues of thought or put ones preconceptions to the test. Not to say that all new agey approaches should be given weight or Are even Worthy of consideration.

Check out the link above as well as gotsamis book "the self aware universe" for examples.

Curiouser and curiouser...

JBArk

EDIT: PS - ignore that last bit about it having fallen from primacy...

I remember when I did this in physics class.

Really makes you wonder what the hell is going on in reality.

Check out quantum entanglement and quantum teleportation as well. In the quantum world truth is indeed stranger than fiction.

The observer is synonymous with instrument / detector. A detector by default has to interfere with something to observe it hence the results you see in the double split experiment.

One of the major implications is that particles have wave and particle like properties depending on the experiment. Its just different ways of looking at the same objective reality. Experimental set up changes the result when you look for particle property you get a particle when you look for a wave like property you get a wave.

Note that if you fire individual electrons or photons you will get single dots even if measuring wave properties. If you keep firing the electron for example you will get the wave like interference pattern as the dots build up. There are very accurate theories for how that happens but I won't try and explain it its complicated and I don't fully understand it. Basically the particle interferes with itself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/..._double-slit_experiment

The double slit experiment according to the many-worlds interpretation as it applies to the shrodinger cat paradox states every quantum event is a branch point for a new universe, the cat is both alive and dead, irrespective of whether the box is opened, but the "alive" and "dead" cats are in different branches of the universe, both of which are equally real. So quantum probability states that if anything is possible in some universe parralell to this one it must come true regardless of the odds. Essentially it's the multiverse theory. Stay tuned for updates as the discovery or failure to discover the higgs boson will tell us if M-Theory is on the right track or not.

And here is the kicker as I said if something is possible no matter the odds in a paralell universe it will happen. Which means ladies and gentlement in some paralell universe far far away from here...... I am batman.

But burnt's stament is also very valid and IMHO the true one. No observation can be completely passive.

Holy Quantum Physics Batman, you're right!

Yes, all the observational detectors, even our own sensory organs interfere with what is observed.

In an extremely basic example, imagine the measurement of, say, the temperature of water in a jar. You stick a thermometer in the jar to measure the temperature, right? Well, the thermometer has a temperature of its own and most likely different from the water's. when submerged in the water, it will change the initial temperature of the water. What the thermometer will measure therefore will be a temperature different compared to the initial temperature of the water.

Detectors by default interfere with the results, sometimes negligibly, some times drastically. this is not great news. The double split experiment is a more fascinating extension of the thermometer-in-the-water example.

I think you mean "why"? a much better question!

JBArk

It is hard to give you an accurate answer, since I am no physicist. But please note that the video you posted is misleading; the "monitoring camera" is not exactly how it is shown in the video. It is way complicated and it feels as no surprise that things change. In the real world of physicists the "detector" would be something like other particles positioned in one of the slits and waiting to see whether these particles get mobilised when electrons pass through the slit and inadvertently hit them.

But, just for the sake of the argument let's say that there is a camera like the one shown in the video. Cameras detect photons; if electrons were to be detected by the camera then they should emit some photon(s) while they travel towards the slit. Photons that would normally NOT hit the camera now they do and all sorts of different things can happen, e.g. photons bouncing back. Take soccer as an example of what I'm trying to demonstrate; the player (electron) kicks a ball (photon) that travels towards the goal and eventually scores. this is your non-observer scenario. Or, a referee (observer) may decide to have a face-to-face view of the things and decides to stand on the orbit of the ball; the ball eventually hits the referee, bounces back on the player and kills him. Minus observer = the player celebrates the goal, plus observer = the player is dead.

It is impossible to measure anything, without affecting that thing. By observing something, you are doing something to it. Conscious or not, you are interacting with that which is being measured.
Following is from wiki article on uncertainty principle:

"The uncertainty principle can be restated in terms of measurements, which involves collapse of the wavefunction. When the position is measured, the wavefunction collapses to a narrow bump near the measured value, and the momentum wavefunction becomes spread out. The particle's momentum is left uncertain by an amount inversely proportional to the accuracy of the position measurement. The amount of left-over uncertainty can never be reduced below the limit set by the uncertainty principle, no matter what the measurement process.

This means that the uncertainty principle is related to the observer effect, with which it is often conflated. The uncertainty principle sets a lower limit to how small the momentum disturbance in an accurate position experiment can be, and vice versa for momentum experiments."

Ya the video you posted is from the movie what the bleep do we know. That movie totally misused quantum mechanics to promote myths about the nature of consciousness and the universe. It has been extensively debunked and corrected by various physicists and skeptics.

There is nothing surprising with that study. Just another example of experiment confirming theory.

See here:

http://www.sciencedaily....998/02/980227055013.htm

That movie actually got me into quantum physics. And yes it was complete BS. It is easy to warp and missconsture quantum physics to make it something it is not. Quantum events rarely happen beyond the nanoscale and a human hair id 100,000 nanometers in diameter so effecting anything that can be seen is not going to happen.

As far as how a detector can effect the results I dont know exactly what detector they are using but usually to detect a electron you must sense the field of energy from it like a ring of copper that creates a current from the passing of electrons through it's center. A old fashioned way of making a surge protector for construction is to tie a knot in a electrical line. As the current passes through it will create it's own resistance. If the current is steady then there is no change but if there is a spike in the current it will increase the electromagnetic filed around the wire and create it's own resistance. A detector even a passive one would do the same just on a infinitely smaller scale. That's the only thing I could see in this phenomena from what I know about electrical current which admittedly is somewhat limited.

Because to observe something, you need to interact with it. This collapses the wavefunction.

No, it "feels" whatever you measure it with (light, electrical enegy, or whatver means you can devise)

I find that last point really interesting - it is impossible to know simultaneously the speed and location of something exactly. Once you get more accurate with one, the other becomes more vague. It certainly does seem that the universe somehow has limits on what we can measure! This links into what the nature of time is - pau posted a really interesting article from Scientific American about this a few days ago, check it out!

^^You don't emit a ray beam from your eyes. Come on now cyclops There is no beam coming from your eyes light goes into your eyes.

The electrons don't care about your thoughts. They don't have the capability to care about your thoughts which are neatly tucked into your head.

Yikes thats a lot of stuff to go trough. I'll try to respond when I have more time.