is it true in quantum physics that observation changes the nurture of reality?

Answer 1

Absolutely. $20 worth of materials can show photons exhibit either wave characteristics or particle characteristics. But not with $100 Billion can you ever show a photon with BOTH wave and particle characteristic. It depends entirely on how you choose to observe the photon.

Answer 2

First off: impressive! You seem to have cut through most of the nonsense surrounding QM on your own. You're right, consciousness has nothing to do with QM, and anyone who tells you otherwise is trying to sell you something. The point to the double-slit experiment was mostly a philosophical shock. Up until then, physicists considered nature to be something which could be passively observed. But quantum mechanics showed us that to make a measurement, you have to interact with the system, thereby influencing it. The other weird things is the wave-particle duality. If you do the experiments, you will come to the conclusion that the best description you have is that particles act like waves, until you try to observe them. Once you try to observe the location, it "snaps" back into being a particle, and you find it to be at an exact location, instead of spread out all wavelike. And if you wait some time, it will start spreading out as a wave again, and if you measure again, you will see it "snap" back to being a particle again, probably not even in the same location. If you go even deeper into the theory, you will notice that not only is it impossible for us to know exactly where a particle is, even nature itself does not hold that information. By measuring it, you force the particle to pick a location to be at, and the probability for picking a location is given by the crests and throughs of the wavefunction. Quantum mechanics makes sense, just not in a way we're used to. It takes a lot of dedication to fully wrap your head around it, and even then, you're probably still missing something.

Answer 3

True. Werner Heisenberg formulated this theory. Actually, you cant know the exact position and velocity of an object at the same time. In quantum physics this is especially relevant because, for example, to see something a photon must bounce off it. but a photon to a quantum particle carries a lot of energy so when it hits that particle it moves it as it is deflected. So you see the photon as it was at the moment of collision yet the thing you are trying to measure has already moved because of that photon.
This same effect takes place if you measure the speed of a baseball! But the photons' energies are so tiny that their effect is probably impossible to measure.

Answer 4

"the nurture (sic) of reality sounds a be ominous", but even before quantum mechanics, it was recognized that you cannot observe anything without perturbing it. To see something, for example, you must shine light on it, heating it slightly. Quantum mechanics simply established an absolute lower bound on how much you have to perturb (randomize) a given property in order to measure a complementary one to a given level of precision.

Answer 5

Not quite. All it says is that until you look and find out what something is, there are lots of things it could be. And according to quantum mechanics, the smallest particles (like electrons) aren't really anything until you look and find out - they are in 'superposition states', or several things at once, and the act of observing 'collapses the waveform' or determines what it is. But no, it's nothing that can change reality, and no, you can't control what it becomes - probability does that. And if you have a lot of electrons stuck together, say, in the form of a carton of milk, the probability of it being anywhere but where you left it is practically null anyway, even without checking.

Answer 6

I know that scientist have discovered unexpected observations when the subjects they were observing were aware that they were being watched. People will behave differently when they know they are being studied. I believe it is called the Hawthorne effect. Take a look at the link. I'm not sure if that answers your question, but I hope it helps!

Answer 7

All study of quanta is reduced to frequency and harmonics - at least from within the gravity well of our Sun, which is where absolutely ALL of our research has been conducted. The bias of that gravity well is not taught in undergraduate study.
Thus, any study process sets its own bias on these harmonics -from gravity to seismic waves & atomics to chemistry. More than any other study, physics research gets corrupted by these harmonics.
Quanta is fundamentally based on the harmonics of our Sun's activity, but the database for our quantum physics do not yet include the Solar harmonics quotient at all.
Since the fundamental bias is not regarded, then secondary conditions may easily moderate the calculated results.
The perceived nature of reality is thus contrived by the experiment's premise for every experiment to date. Reality is thus made subjective.

Need a new String Theory? Since String Theory models are completely subjective, any new premise will yield unique results, with their departure a function of premise definition. Add the Solar harmonics, and String Theory disappears to be replaced with harmonic displacement models, which are solid and tangible... not as much fun but far more useful. Their fun lies in vector models moving faster than light.

Just stand outside the phenomenon of physics experiments for a moment and look at the set. Do you REALLY expect the events of the universe to be based on your mood or inclination??? Do you really want to listen to a person who believes his or her imagination affected the physics?
It works very well for securing research funding from other humans, and that is the subtle answer.

Scientist leave their ego at the door.

Answer 8

Yes, that is correct. It is known as Heisenbergs uncertainty principle. It basically says that the action of measuring something affects the outcome - you influence the outcome by simply measuring. Google the word 'heisenberg' and you will find reams of detailed explanations and examples.

Answer 9

In at least one instance, it does.
Light particles seem to behave differently when observed.