Why do sub-atomic particles behave differently when observed by humans?

Question

It has been proven in experiments that sub-atomic particles change their behavior when being viewed by a human being in real time than if they were just recorded by a machine and viewed later.

What could the possible reason be that the sub-atomic particles seem to "sense" they are being watched and thus change their behavior?

Possible explanations:
1. It is God waving hello.
2. Human thought affects sub-atomic particles and thus, human thought actually can shape reality.
3. It's just weird.

Any thoughts?

Some say that this supports the theory that God (the Universal Quantum Consciousness) simply "thought" the Universe into existence and that is why, at the Quantum level, sub-atomic particles respond to thought.

Wouldn't it be weird if one day science actually proved the existence of an intelligent creative force behind all of this?

The basis for this is the famous DOUBLE-SLIT experiment as referenced here:

http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/GeneralInterest/Harrison/DoubleSlit/DoubleSlit.html

Regarding God and quantum mechanics. It depends on what you imagine God to be? An old man on a throne? Then no, God has nothing to do with quantum mechanics.

But if you imagine God to be a pervasive intelligent quantum personality, then yeah, quantum mechanics is all about God.

Saying that "God" and science cannot work together is just plain, well, STUPID.

Answer 1

I think you have misunderstood the mechanism by which these experiments are undertaken:

A human can not directly observe a sub-atomic interaction unless light is emitted from it in the visible range of the electromagnetic spectrum. For most subatomic interactions the energy involved means the de Broglie wavelength is too short for the radiation to be visible. To that end, indirect observations are made.

A fine example is that of observing the path of neutrinos. These can not be directly observed due to the fact that they interact extremely weakly with matter. A facility buried in a water-filled mountain has observed neutrinos from the sun, however, and shown their existence. This was achieved by observing the ionising effect of the neutrino on the nucleus of an atom which normally decays by emitting beta radiation. The ionised atom released a positron, which collided with an orbital electron and annihilation occured. The gamma radiation that was emitted was detected. Bubble chambers also work in an indirect way.

No sub-atomic effects can be directly observed by humans. Fact.

The only reason a difference in results could occur is if the machine was averaging the results in a 'principal of equivelence' style, and the human observation was of one particular results. According to Heisenburg's uncertainty principal, the observation of a particle will change its state such that information about the particle can never be fully known. This is another fact that has been proven and used in modern electronics (the LED relies on quantum tunnelling, which is only possible due to the uncertainty principal).

Be careful, God has no place in quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is about random probabilities, and 'God doesn't play dice'. There was a famous film called 'what the **** do we know' in which quantum mechanics was supposed to be responsible for supernatural occurances. This film was ridiculed by the science community and, 2005, was voted as the most inaccurate scientific film of all time. This is NOT a case of science saying 'there is no God' but a case of science saying 'don't be so stupid, you have no idea what you are talking about. Go and eat your biscuits'.

So, if you are TRULY interested in God, go to a church. If you are TRULY interested in science, go to university. If you want to unite the two, go start a cult and earn money off of other people's stupidity.

And that's all I have to say about that.

Additional details:

I am well aware of the double slit experiment you are talking about. It makes no difference, human interaction is not a factor as humans can't directly observe the results anyway.

More to the point, I resent the implication that I regard people who believe in God to believe in 'a man on a throne'. As an open minded physicist I am well aware that the concept of God is much deeper than that. I understand some people believe that the manipulation of quantum probabilities to perform 'miracles' (occurances that would otherwise be impossible according to the principal of equivelence') can be thought of as 'God'. I know that consciousness has not yet been attributed to anything physical and I understand why people may find the need to attribute this conciousness to something separate from the 'normal' description of the universe. None of this is in dispute. Panthiests believe that God is in all things as a spirit, a supernatural force permeating through the universe. If that is what you want to believe, that is fine. I have my own beliefs but I can tell you now that as a physicist QUANTUM MECHANICS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH GOD.

There is nothing in the realm of quantum mechanics without mathematical description. For that reason, God (in whatever form) is a totally separate issue.

The experiment you are describing is flawed. Fact. The indirect mechanism by which results are taken, whether read by a human or by a machine, all depend upon Heisenburg's uncertainty principal. Fact. The differences in the results average out as is dictated by the principal of equivelence. Fact.

No physics laws are violated. No mathematics is in error. The same physics laws that were written in the 1940s STILL hold true. These laws do not include a 'God' function or variable. The universe is totally predictable within the bounds of the uncertainty principal. Fact.

These are not 'just theories' or 'theories with holes in it', these are fundimental facts which have been proven again and again. Moreover, nowhere in these theories is there the possibility or plausibility of spirit, mind, soul, God or conciousness of any kind.

If you want to study these issues, study philosophy. Philosophy is the study of the truth. Physics (including quantum mechanics) is the study of FACT.

I am not 'plain stupid'. On the contrary, I believe you are embarasing yourself.

This is, of course, my belief. You can believe whatever you want, irrespective of facts.

Answer 2

Sub-atomic particles are govern by quantum mechanics. An observer lets say a human it's govern by Newtonian law. In Newtonian law you can predict the momentum and position ie the particle is not govern by the uncertainty rule. When the observer observer the sub-atomic particle the wave function collapse and the particle will act like an ordinary Newtonian particle.

Electron is know to have a weak nuclear force and when faced with two possibility it will act like a wave. When a human observer the wave will collapse. Remember a human is a large body of mass compared to an electron it has a gravity and gravity is inversely proportional to distance. Since the human is close to the electron it will overlap the weak force causing the electron to act like ordinary matter.

Answer 3

Out of those three I'd take the last - Niel Bohr said if you are not shocked by quantum mechanics - you have not understood it.

The problem is there's the act of observing a sub atomic particle forces it to take on definite values - some scientists used to think that it had values before we looked but the act of looking - keeping in mind we cant observe something without being a part of it, effecting it - if you see something its because photons have bounced off it and in to your eye - thats fine for a chair or a person - for a subatomic particle such radiation could throw it way off course. Scientists have grudgingly come to accept because of experimental proof that subatomic particles really dont have specific values until we measure them it sounds paradoxical and many scientists are unhappy about the philosophical dilemmas it raises. It caused Einstein to say 'God does not play with dice' by which he meant 'randomness does not lie at the heart of matter' but all experiments have shown Einstein's intuition in this matter was wrong.

If you'd like a popular science account of this fascinating subject I'd recommend you read 'in search of schrödinger's cat' and possibly the sequel 'in search of schrödinger's kittens' by the author John Gribbin. Many popular science books have chapters on quantum mechanics but its so amazing it deserves its own book on your shelf.

**No it doesn't mean anything to do with God. If God existed his observing things (if you believe he does) would collapse wave functions and we'd detect his peeping. Quantum mechanics is more like proving God doesn't exist. If you don't like facts, maybe science isn't for you.**

Answer 4

All quanta (electrons, photons, fermions, bosons, and so on. and so on.) react in any different case whilst detected. Such is the character of the Heisenberg Uncertainty theory. In essence the HUP says if we discover a quantum, we will have no clue what its momentum (or speed) is. And vice versa; if we discover its speed, we will have no clue the place it truly is placed. The mere act of detecting a quantum, will pin factor that quantum and "fall down" its attending wave function. Its the wave function that provides a quantum its uncertainty in area; so whilst it truly is detected, there is not uncertainty because of the fact, howdy, there it truly is. And that makes the wave function disappear so the quantum acts like a particle relatively than a wave. There are various experiments to coach this, however the chop up slit test all of us studied in HS physics lab is the main compelling one. in this one, we launch one photon (could be an electron) at a time to pass with the aid of the two slits. on the show screen, we see interference bands indicating the wave nature of the quantum the easy bands point out the main probable spot for the quantum and the darkish point out the least probable. Now we positioned a area detector in the path. The bands disappear. as a substitute we see a development that sounds like what we'd anticipate if the quanta have been merely debris without waves. So, counting on the place our emitter is aimed, we see a single bright dot on the show screen. there's no uncertainty, the detected quantum will pass the place it truly is aimed. There are much greater state-of-the-artwork chop up slit experiments that coach the wave fall down can happen in the previous via detection in the now. this ability that opposite to all different warning indications, time holiday into the previous could be available, a minimum of for counsel. examine the "fabric of the Cosmos" via Brian Greene who describes this test in some element as he defines the "arrow of time."

Answer 5

Particles are not effected by our thoughts. To see a particle, we have to bounce a photon off it, use an electric or magnetic field field or some such thing. There is no way to detect something unless it effects it's surroundings in some way. Really small objects like that are effected even by a single photon, so they will be changed if we observe them.

Answer 6

I have never heard of this effect. Do you have a reference?

reply: I am aware of the experiment, just not your interpetation of it. I believe you have misunderstood what scientist mean when they say observe. It is shorthand way of saying something having an effect on the macro world. It is not about people.

Answer 7

It could be the same reason that makes you behave differently when observed by humans

Answer 8

No, it just proves that the universe is base on probabilities, but you can't observe a probability. consider it a universal law. i.e. a favorite saying of mine,, we exist because it is extreemly probable that we exist.