Quantum physics proves that observing matter actually effects it, thoughts?

Question

I am curious as to whether anyone has thought about the implications of this, if familiar with the idea. If not familiar please do not answer.

Answer 1

I think what you are referring to, is the kenetic energy, that our brains emit.

This HAS been proven in a few cases.
Our emotions have the ability to alter ORGANIC matter that is living but not nonorganic substances.

It can range from small to a significant alteration in things such as plant life.

Simply observing matter has shown no signs of change in effect.

I did an experiment with this theory in college.
I planted 2 rows of green beans. They were 15 feet apart. Every day I would stand in front of row #1. I thought of how much I loved my puppy, over and over.

I would then walk over to row #2 and think of hate and would mentally imagine them burning a full blaze.

The #1 row grew over 6 feet tall.
The #2 row only grew 6 inches and was dying.

When "LIFE" magazine heard about my experimental project, they sent the famous reporter, Phil Chandler to do an article on my findings and myself.

The word spread like "wildfire". Lol.
The "Tonight show ", starring Johnny Carsen, back then, called me.
They wanted me on the show, as the girl who "Talks to plants?"
I DON'T THINK SO!

Anyway, I've been hearing about the theory ever since.

I DID try this experiment on nonorganic material and nothing showed up at the lab, of any change at all.

I hope this helped answer your question.

It is interesting. How our kenetic energy can influence organic matter, still remains a mystery but too many people, UNDER LABROTORY conditions have seen the surprising results.

In my own opinion, from MY research, I have found this to be true.

How? I do not know.

Good luck on your studies. Quantum physics is fascinating!

Answer 2

This really depends on what you are looking at. Quantum physics was designed to describe the smallest particles we could look at, and when you get down that small, mass and energy become very real functions of eachother. Viewing one of these particles does not change the particle itself. The fact that the particle has been seen means that the photon used to excite the atom has already come back to some observer. The momentum most likely would have changed, and the speed as well, but the particle itself is unchanged, i.e. an electron is still an electron, even if viewing it causes it to go in a direction that you have influenced by viewing it.

This has far reaching applications and implications that go through most of experimental physics today. Most particle detectors use this information to gather data about particles going through them. The idea is that a particle going through a doped substance will collide with at least some atoms in that substance, and it will loose some energy, and emit light. The ammount that this changed the mass/energy of the particle is extremely low in this case, and high resolutions for identifying particles are possible. The implications tell us exactly what heisenburg told us: that some of God's toys just are out of our reach, well, at least, at the moment....

Answer 3

You observe a particle of matter by bouncing a particle of matter or a quanta of radiation off of it. There's no way to do observations without transferring some of the momentum to the observed particle from the particle being used as an experimenter's tool.

Furthermore, the location of the interaction between the two particles is uncertain by a distance on the order of the test particle's wavelength.

The more energetic (shorter wavelength) your test particle is, the smaller the probability distribution is for the location of the observed particle. But the increased certainty about the location is paid for by a decreased certainty in the momentum of the observed particle because your high-energy test particle will have kicked it harder than a low-energy test particle would have.

So you can only narrow the momentum and the position of the observed particle down to some minimum product, namely, 1.055E-34 Joule seconds.

Answer 4

It is actually based on the work of Werner Heisenberg. According to Werner Heisenberg’s theories, at just the time when we can know either where a particle is or how fast it is traveling, we cannot know both. This is because the very act of measuring the particle alters its behavior. Measuring the particle’s speed changes its position, and measuring its position changes its speed.

(Hence the reason for the "Heisenberg compensator" in Star Trek lore)

Because this applies to quantum physics, the reasoning for this falls to the methods required. In other fields, on more visible actions and subjects, it is possible to simply watch without interfering. When an object is dropped, one can watch it fall without affecting the gravitational attraction which accelerates it.

On the subatomic level, such observation is not possible. In general, detecting the presence of something (detecting position) requires producing a collision (altering speed). Similarly, the only way to determine speed (not altering speed, but measuring) is to determine how long it takes to get from one point to another, although until the particle(s) arrive at "another point," that/those particle(s) whereabouts are not precisely known.

Answer 5

The analogy used was the electron that exists around the nucleus of an atom. The electron is there without a doubt but where is it at any given moment? Without stopping the electron, you would never know. So as a result the electron isn't seen as an individual part but as the potential to be in any area within a certain parameter around the nucleus, ie, a cloud.

Quantum physics does not apply to matter, as in atoms (observe the plural). QP is the laws that affect the sub-atomic level of energy. Matter doesn't exist at this level, it's all about energy and it's flavors and spins.

Answer 6

It does not prove it per se. It is an inference that explains it.

Nothing in physics is proved. Only mathematical ideas can be proved.

Of course the problem with this theory is that the definition of an 'observer' is so loosely defined and vague that it is not in my opinion a solid theory (not overall just in that sense)

Answer 7

Your statement holds true only for stuff at quantum scales (..smaller than 1.6^minus 35 meters) like electrons, photons, etc.,. For the uncertainty principle to affect big things, like pool cues, blades of grass, stars and so on, each and every individual subatomic particle would have to be influenced by observation.

Answer 8

1

Answer 9

I was aware that the act of observing a photon brings it out
of wave form and makes it a particle however a photon cannot
really be considered as "matter"...
What matter are you talking about ?

Answer 10

are you talking about schodingers cat? yeah it kind of pushes you toward the idea that as humans we shape and change our world just by being here. but how is the matter changed by observing it? by looking at my computer am i really changing it.