Judy, I read the links and like Penrose's idea that gravity collapses the wave function and results in a solid and fairly stable world. I had even wondered if some huge Consciousness kept things solid - somehow trying to merge the info from our sense with the idea that we create the universe in consciousness! But gravity sounds more rational, for sure. Lanza's biocentrism is based on the Copernican understanding of quantum physics and assumes that if you are not looking at something, it reverts to the wave status and is no longer really there or observable. Just so far out there. Thanks again.
--- 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. > > 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. >
