InAwe said:
Entheogenic gnosis,
I was also very interested in this "observer effect," which is the idea that we can change the activity of subatomic particles simply by perceiving them.
Neil Tyson was on the Joe Rogan podcast, and he completely disavowed this idea. It's about an 8 minute video, check it out:
Quantum mechanics is a relatively new area of scientific inquiry, so who knows what we will find. But apparently the observer effect is very misunderstood in the laymen community (in which I include myself). Much to my dismay, turns out it's not very mystical. The instruments used to measure the particle cause a change in its position.
Many mysteries remain, but it sounds like this one has been solved.
I could not get the video to work, if possible, do you think you could briefly outline Mr. Tyson's views?
...yeah, I will admit that I'm far from being an expert here, my main interest is in chemistry, physics is one of those things where I like to smoke hash and contemplate the concepts as a form of entertainment more than a form of research, so I'm not as knowledgeable here as I would be in others areas of interest.
Have you looked into the "two slit experiment?"
In the famous double-slit experiment, single particles, such as photons, pass one at a time through a screen containing two slits. If either path is monitored, a photon seemingly passes through one slit or the other, and no interference will be seen. Conversely, if neither is checked, a photon will appear to have passed through both slits simultaneously before interfering with itself, acting like a wave.
Wheeler's "delayed choice" gedanken done with single helium atom
physicsworld.com
So when not being measured, photons behave like waves, and when they are being measured they behave like particles...When not being measured the photons create an interference pattern which indicates that a single photon is simultaneously passing through both slits, however, if we try to measure or observe them actually doing this, they begin to go through either one slit or the other.
-eg
First off, can you tell me how to quote just a section of a post instead of the whole thing? I've tried to delete the unwanted sections, but then it doesn't show it as a post.
Anyway, Neil Tyson was commenting on how the observer effect has been misconstrued as a mystical or misunderstood phenomenon, when in reality it is the instruments used to measure the particle that causes the change, not our conscious perception (or lack there of) of it. If you YouTube "Neil Tyson Joe Rogan observer effect" it will pop up.
Regarding the double slit experiment, I recently heard about it on Sam Harris's podcast when he was interviewing Lawrence Krauss. I didn't understand it fully, because they were discussing it with some degree of a presupposition that the listener knew the experiment. So I can't really comment on it. But I will definitely be looking into it because this is the second time it has come up.
I think the tendency for some less-scientifically-minded people (or more open minded people) is to unnecessarily or prematurely ascribe mystery to a domain or experiment. Hard to say why this is. Perhaps it stems from a desire to impose our own personal beliefs about the metaphysical nature of the universe onto the actual nature of the universe. I'm far from qualified to offer any legitimate conjecture in this arena, but I have noticed that people love to point out the flaws and limitations of science. Hey, at least they're trying.
When it comes down to it, we'll probably never know. As Terence Mckenna said, "nowhere is it writ in adamantene that troops of monkeys were meant to understand the architectonics of the cosmos."
Sure is fun to think about though.
