--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jst...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "wayback71" <wayback71@> wrote: > <snip> > > I just finished reading Biocentrism by Robert Lanza. MD. He > > cites the idea that human awareness of an experiement > > actually changes the result - an oft-cited idea by New Agers > > and spiritual folk of many types. In reading a critque of > > the book, and also talking to a scientist friend, it turns > > out that the common New Agey notion (which I often quoted in > > the past) of human awareness having an effect on an > > experimnent is wrong - at least so far as can be measured > > now. In the classic quantum experiment, electrons shimmering > > around a nucleus in a wave form - but not yet collapsed into > > matter or really locatable - can be affected by any physical > > interference. Once that interference occurs, they collapse > > from the wave state into form. But as I understand it (and I > > could be wrong but this is what scientists are saying) just > > having someone think about the experiment or the electrons or > > aware of it, does nothing measurable. > > Well, it never was just having someone think about the > experiment that was said to collapse the wave function; it > was specifically having someone look at the measurement > apparatus that did it (which may be what you're saying). > Supposedly, until somebody looked at it, the measurement > apparatus itself was in a superposition of states.
My understanding is that looking at the apparatus did not collapse the wave function, you have to interfere physically in some obvious manner. But hey, I am no quantum physicist. > > There's a good layperson's explanation of the measurement > problem by theoretical physicist Shantena Sabbatini here: > > http://www.shantena.com/media/Thequantummeasurementproblem.pdf > > Sabbatini has his own interpretation, which preserves the > idea that the observer plays a role, but not because the > observer collapses the wave function. I can't paraphrase > his approach (I can barely grasp it!), but he says "the > conditions of our knowing make [the world appear classical]." > > How or if that stands up against what you're talking about, > I haven't a clue... > > Sabbatini, BTW, is a mystic, a Taoist. > > > You really have to interfere in a physical way, and so far > > human thought alone does not do that. So this misunderstanding > > of the experiment by New Agers is pretty huge, and to most > > scientists it looks like spiritual people grasping for > > confirmation of their beliefs in a domain they don't accurately > > understand. > > It's an unwarranted extension of the "Copenhagen > interpretation" of quantum mechanics, that observing the > measurement collapses the wave function, which was itself > a reasonable guess given the experimental evidence. But > it isn't entirely fair to blame the New Agers, because > there have been a number of physicists (not just Hagelin!) > who have extended it in this manner as well. > > > The experiment about splitting an electron and having each > > "aware" of (respionding to) the behavior of the other across > > huge distances, instantaneously, is true and still puzzling > > to physicists, from what I have heard. > > It's part of the same problem, actually. > > Here's another interesting angle, from Roger Penrose (who > argues that neurons in the brain are affected by quantum > mechanical processes, incidentally): > > http://discovermagazine.com/2005/jun/cover/article_view?b_start:int=0&-C= > > http://tinyurl.com/yhyeptg > > He incorporates gravity into quantum mechanics and suggests > that gravity is what collapses the wave function. Thanks Judy for all the links. I appreciate the time you spent. I will read them all, but it will take me some time........... >
