This Will Mindfuck You: The Double-Slit Experiment
The video below shows scientific proof that there is something NOT quite logical or scientific about this universe. The mere act of observation can completely change the outcome of an event! Before I get too ahead of myself, you need to watch the video below to understand:
(Forgive the corny cartoon character explaining the concept — at least he knows his stuff)
Recap: When a camera observed the electrons, they acted as particles. However, when the no equipment was used to observe the electrons, they acted as waves and particles simultaneously.
So what’s the reason for this? Does the electron somehow know that it is being watched? That was the only “logical” reason that scientists could come up with so much skepticism and controversy followed.
Want even further proof?
Then in 2002, a group of researchers set up the experiment in a way that the electron could not possibly receive information about the existence of an observing instrument. The setup was on a much smaller scale: a single photon was emitted and an interferometer that observed the wave-or-particle behavior was either inserted or not inserted. (Click here to download the full report)
Here’s the kicker: The insertion of the interferometer took only 40 nanoseconds (ns) while it would take 160 ns for the information about the configuration to travel from the interferometer to reach the photon before it entered the slits. This means in order for the photon to “know” if it was being watched, that information would have to travel at 4 times the speed of light, which is impossible (the speed of light is the universal speed limit).
The Results: The photons acted like particles 93% of the time that they were observed. Even if the photon “guessed” the configuration each time, statistically speaking it would never have more than 52% accuracy. In scientific experiments, a 93% success rate is as conclusive as they come.
What are the implications of this?
1. Matter can act as both a wave and a particle depending on whether or not it is being observed (Wave-Duality Theory)
This is the least meaningful implication for you as a macroscopic organism, but nonetheless it’s a pretty crazy concept.
2. Observation can (possibly) affect the outcome of macroscopic events
After all, you and everything you know are composed of these microscopic particles, so why couldn’t something large be influenced as well? It would be the sum of a seemingly infinite amount of pieces of matter acting as either waves or particles. Scientists have very mixed opinions on this topic so I’ll just say it makes sense to me that this could happen on a larger scale.
3. We don’t know very much about this universe (Science is not yet an ‘exact science’)
There are a couple things out there that science still cannot explain like the characteristics of gravity, but this blows Newton’s discovery out of the water. As we study smaller and smaller particles in order to understand more about what we’re made, we seem to find more things that just don’t make sense. Point being that nothing should be ruled out completely because we simply cannot know anything for certain at this point.
What other implications did you get out of these experiments?
1. http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/schroedinger/two-slit2.html
2. http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.2597
3.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind
Loading ...
Saggingpeach said on 12.05.2010
Our existence is enslaving quantum matter into existing in definite states. For the good of the universe we must wipe out the observers and free the matter! Muerte la revolution!
Mr.Logic said on 12.06.2010
Its called the observer effect, and scientists are well aware of it. It is caused because the circumstances in which the electron is in change with the introduction of new material (aka the observer). It is NOT that important as we can recreate the circumstances of the electron in normalcy. The electron doesn’t know it is being watched. It has no mind, nor reason, it is just acting that way because of its interactions with matter
kdogbokon said on 12.08.2010
Hey! Thanks for your response. So, is it our mass that the electrons are interacting with?? Or what??
Phil said on 12.16.2010
i think, it has to do with time and space.. and the interaction described above.. since the observer.. is.. taking extra space the whole process of interaction has changed
Clifton said on 12.07.2010
On a larger scale, events are altered all the time by observers. People act differently when they are being observed, and that can be used on so many different levels.
Human Being said on 12.07.2010
Could it be that the observer interfered with the wave pattern causing a more complex entry through the slit? Also, being that it’s an electron, isn’t it more probable of being more vulnerable to the wave pattern, because of its weight, rather then that of a marble?
Drmgiver said on 12.08.2010
The speed of light is NOT the universal speed limit. Einstein stated that something could not accelerate past the speed of light. There is NOTHING that says something cannot be faster than that in the first place.
Jordan said on 12.09.2010
Actually I read another study recently that again proved that light is the universal speed limit. Don’t have the link anymore, but they sounded quite sure of themselves
beachside said on 12.11.2010
Most scientists like to sound very sure of themselves. Until they realize the speed of light is not really that fast, in fact it is relatively slow, they will keep making the same mistakes. Einstein did some amazing work, but researchers must go beyond. They still use rockets for space travel. Until they understand moving in space, they’re monkeys with sticks. They must stop using earth logic.
Skreeran said on 12.10.2010
Actually, the speed of light most definitely is the universal speed limit. At least for matter. Space can stretch faster than the speed of light, but to accelerate a piece of matter to the speed of light would require an infinite amount of energy, which naturally we cannot attain.
soha said on 12.14.2010
Yes but in this case they WERE talking about acceleration.
digsss said on 12.19.2010
the problem with something moving faster than light is that it would break the law of causality i.e the effects could be observed before the cause therefore something moving FTL would be moving backwards in time from our frame of reference. unless the theory of relativity is wrong
Henry said on 03.14.2011
But there are galaxies that are moving away from us at faster than the speed of light. That’s why we have the cosmic horizon, and can’t see the whole universe. In fact the galaxies that are furthest away from us are receding at nearly the speed of light without their matter breaking apart. This is because they are only moving at a few hundred thousand miles an hour compared to nearby space. However, the space between the galaxies is stretching at tremendous speed, because in the absence of matter a repulsive version of gravity outweighs the ‘normal’ attractive gravity we see on Earth. The further away a galaxy is, the more empty space there is between us, and therefore the faster it appears to fly away from us.
MAT said on 03.18.2011
@ henry i was just about to reply and saw your comment, basically saying what i was going to i think, i think im right in that we observe galaxies to be moving faster away from us than the speed of light, but it isnt the galaxy (as in the matter) moving faster than the speed of light, its the space between us and said galaxy expanding faster than the speed of light.
For all matter the speed of light is a limit.
tony said on 03.20.2012
@ mat and everybody who says for matter, the speed of light is the limit.
What is matter? Matter doesn’t really exist as anything really, it is just energy vibrating at a frequency, matter doesn’t really exist until we observe it.
Henry said on 03.29.2012
Well, as you say, it is just energy, but due to E=mc^2 that energy has some inherent mass. The problem with trying to accelerate anything with mass to the speed of light is that it’s mass becomes infinite. Since infinite mass is basically meaningless or at least impossible as we know it, the speed of light is the speed limit for anything with mass.
Lindsay said on 03.31.2011
*drools*
Duh, uhmm.. wha??
Ok, I’ve re-read a few times. I think I get it. Do you know of any resources that would help me understand this? I’m fascinated, but need a severely ‘dumbed down’ version. If you please. Thanks.
daveb said on 04.07.2011
Hi Lindsay,
A great book on the topic is “In search of Schroedinger’s Cat” by John Gibbons. He starts with early atomic theory and moves into quantum theory. he covers the double-slit experiment as well as a number of other mysteries of modern science. the whole book is a very enjoyable read and does a great job of explaining these fantastic properties to people like you and me who don’t have any sort of background in the crazy math required to understand the equations (of which the book has virtually none).
Nigel Hewitson said on 05.13.2011
Hi, there is a follow up to ‘In search of Schrodinger’s cat’ as well (point of info). Is anyone familiar with the ‘many worlds’ interpretation of the two slit experiment. The stuff here is based upon The Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum physics. I’ve been captivated by the experiment for several years. But Wheeler’s many World theory i.e that the particles are being interfered with by particles in a parallel universe, now that is a mind fuck ! I believe Wheeler’s theory isn’t considered at all likely. To tell the truth I’m no longer up to speed in my own laymans way. The whole thing fascinates me, not just the science but the personalities. I mean imagine working out Quantum electro dynamics in your head ? Richard Feynman did. Quadratic equations give me a headache !
Henry said on 04.12.2011
The first time I understood this concept was when I read The Fabric of the Cosmos, by Brian Greene. He does an amazing job of explaining everything in metaphors and otherwise making it understandable for everyone. For reference, this is the same guy that wrote The Elegant Universe, and did the voice over on the PBS Nova special by the same name.
tony said on 03.20.2012
Agree, the speed of light has been exceeded. Also there isn’t a way currently to tell if the speed of light has slowed over time. (2nd law of thermodynamics)
Laminad said on 12.09.2010
Idk much about this, but I would think the object being entered would definitely have a charge of some sort so the electron would “feel ” that as well, but that could only be the case in the first experiment and I have no idea if this would effect whether or not they acted as a wave or a particle.
votershatefreedom said on 12.09.2010
there’s a reason it’s called ‘quantum’. at that small of a scale gravity, time, and light have a massive effect on the happenstance. adding more elements that in tune to the test environment change the outcome immediately by changing the basic form of the experiment on that small scale. it makes perfect sense. i like the cartoon though.
Interesting said on 12.10.2010
The particle doesn’t know it is being watched, that’s what I’ve always disliked about this video. It adds mysticism in the wrong place. You see, all that “sight” is, is the collective sum of photons bouncing back from objects at certain wavelengths. An electron is so small that we cannot “see” it, per se, but we can figure out where it is (to an extent, see the The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle). That’s what is happening here. The electron acts like a wave when passing through either slit because it exists in a state of probability; it can enter the left, right, or both, and sometimes it does. It’s existing as a wave. But, the introduction of a variable (like a photon) causes the wave function to collapse, making it act like a particle.
Glad to see blogs about this stuff though. Good job.
Grismar said on 12.11.2010
It seems to me that you can only observe something by interacting with it in one way or another. The video doesn’t say -how- the observation is performed. They symbolize it with a technical “eye”, but an eye would operate as a photon receiver, implying that the electron interacted with photons.
Whether its photons, an magnetic field, or anything else that could be measured, it would have to have had some kind of interaction with the electron to measure its preference. And it’s this interaction that forces the waveform to collapse.
No mumbo-jumbo about “electrons knowing that they’re being watched” required, it seems? You could point at the bit about the insertion of an interferometer and the required “4x lightspeed” for the electron to select a slit, but clearly, the electron doesn’t “select a slit”. It’s more like a wave of probability passing through both slits, starting to interfere and then, when they get up to the interferometer, the waveform is forced to collapse, since it has to interact with the interferometer.
So, the rule seems to be that, without interaction, a particle exists in all possible states and locations it could be since its last interaction; but as soon as at -has- to interact with something else, the waveform – all possible states – collapses and has to go into one possible state. Either interacting or not, but by then you have some information about the particle.
It’s strange at first, but really quite pretty and simple, if you ask me.
KT said on 04.08.2011
Firstly, no scientific experiment can be perfectly replicated. I suspect that there were some uncontrolled variables that led to the different observations. My knowledge of physics – especially quantum physics – is weak, but an electromagnetic interference seems like a logical explanation. After all, electrons are charged particles…
Secondly, these findings further demonstrate that there is still much that we can not yet explain. However, be mindful that our technology is much more advanced than what the lay press would have us believe. Let’s just wait and see how this plays out…
Jason said on 04.26.2011
physicists are fully aware that you cannot use photons to observe particles like electrons because photons are larger than electrons. They use other techniques to observe such as observing the changes in the background radiation. This technique does not interfere with the electrons behavior. All of these questions related to the power of the device used to observe, gravity of the device etc. affecting the behavior of the electron have all been considered.
Keithen said on 12.11.2010
Could it be multiple dimensions? All dimensions can appear, unless observed then only one dimension would be allowed by physics. So if not observed all possible outcomes exist, but when observed only one outcome comes true?
Keithen said on 12.11.2010
and you cant say that it was the camera because proton accelerators are completely sealed containing a vacuum, no gravity, probably no light we don’t know. Time is always a factor though
Michael said on 12.21.2010
Gravity, as well as light (though it probably has nothing to do with it), do exist in vacuums. If you didn’t know space is a vacuum and light travels through it from the Sun to Earth; also gravity is responsible for holding Earth in orbit.
Anon said on 12.21.2010
Space is not a perfect vacuum. There is matter, though so very little that you’d die anyway.
Kyriakos said on 12.13.2010
Definitely the speed of light is NOT the universal speed limit.
Anyway, its a good experiment.
kent said on 12.13.2010
superman is faster than the speed of light..
doubtful said on 12.19.2010
yes it is
PJK said on 12.21.2010
The speed of light IS the upper limit for velocity, at least for anything that has ever been stationary or travelling slower than c with respect to some reference frame.
There’s always the tachyon hypothesis (there could be some particle, massive body or whatever, that always has and always will travel faster than the speed of light).
I’m very wary of this because it leads to imaginary values (the expression under the square root in the Lorentz factor is negative) for physical quantities. Of course you could argue that tachyons can never interact with (and hence never be observed by) the regular v < c components of the universe.
But then the hypothesis is unfalsifiable, and thus has no place in science.
Daisy said on 12.18.2010
it could be that what ever is powering the machinery used to observe is interfering with the way the matter acts.
johnny said on 12.19.2010
curiosity killed the wave function
Keith said on 12.20.2010
It really can’t be an interaction with the detection equipment, IMO, because that equipment could come in any form whatsoever (big, small, direct, indirect)… and furthermore the effect of detection isn’t proportional in any sense: it simply switches the outcome between wave and particle behaviour. If it were an interaction one would expect it to change based on where the detection equipment is located, how big it is, etc.
I realize everyone wants to make it simple and obvious, and relate it to what we already understand. But maybe that’s going to get in our way of actually making sense of it over time… I’d also agree with some comments that the anthropomorphization of the detection process is problematic: “seeing” is a particular type of observation implying recognition, and the ascription of “choice” to the electrons themselves is ludicrous.
Zach said on 12.20.2010
First off, from my highly regarded grade ten science education I know that E=mc(squared). I also know this means that matter multiplied by the speed of light times itself (ie. more than the speed of light) will create energy. so for the information to be travelling as fast as necessary it would have to be in an energetic form (what form it would travel I don’t know).
Secondly, could it be that we as being macroscopic beings are unable to comprehend the true nature of quantum particles, forcing our minds to rationalize the data into what makes sense? Ya, it seems a little sci-fi. But who’s to say that our mind hasn’t been designed to trick itself as a salesafe so as to not go insane? Or it may be the universe tricking us instead of our minds?
Thats my two cents.
PJK said on 12.21.2010
I’m talking about LOCAL violations of v < c here, not considering constructed general relativistic metrics to allow "apparent" FTL travel, such as the Alcubierre drive.
Anon said on 12.21.2010
Apply Schrödinger’s cat to physics, and this isn’t too hard to figure out. Its both until we look at it, at which time it is a simply a particle, just as the cat was both alive and dead until it was observed. Interference through the observation equipment is indeed possible, but not strictly relevant. Metaphysically, if nothing were observed, would anything really happen? Logically, the answer is yes, because the universe must have been formed in such a way to support life to observe it before the life actually began to exist. But in actuality, it is likely that our universe existed in every possible state until the first life was formed, forcing it into a definite state. More digression would bring me to the theory (or necessity?) of the quantum multiverse, but that would be too much. It suffices to say that happenstance, as we know it, is a purely human construct, that things don’t actually happen, or that every possibility happens at once, whichever you’d prefer (I’ll not discuss the inconsequential nuances separating the two). Continuing on this line of thinking, matter is necessarily a wave when not being observed, because it needs to be everywhere, doing everything at once, something a particle is incapable of doing, much in the same way that things must be a particle when being observed. We only “see” light, a known wave, when it interacts with matter, affecting the way that the particles exist. This dual necessity is what makes this demonstration understandable, at least to me.
On an aside, everybody who is debating explanations and their possibility must realize that it is arrogant to assume the human understanding of physics, especially the quantum form thereof, is complete. While I cannot fault you for this, as such pride is a necessity to any species with the will to survive (after all, if we thought we never understood it all, we would have spent all our time thinking and not gotten to where we are today), please keep in mind that because you assume something is impossible, it is not necessarily impossible. In fact, it is probably happening right now, without you there to observe it.
littlebear said on 12.23.2010
I have a feeling that until we understand that dark matter/energy thing that this answer will evade us the ‘Observation’ that is talked about may be an extension of the observers “soul” interacting with the dark energy of of the particle changing its characteristics
Your Name said on 12.25.2010
watch “down the rabbit hole”.
Max T said on 03.12.2011
This video clip is taken from Down the Rabbit Hole: What the Bleep?! right? I’ve seen it a few times and became very interested but have heard on many occasions that much of the information is far from credible. Can anyone elaborate… Why wouldn’t this experiment be taken exponentially more seriously when considering the implications?
Eric Andrews said on 03.22.2011
I believe the scientists running the experiments should look more into gravity before jumping to conclusions. I do have an open mind however and perhaps the particles could be changed merely by the act of observation. I do believe that the more likely reason would be that the gravitational pull of the interferon could be so much greater that it would be enough to alter the path of the electron. More experimentation needed!
Tucker Warner said on 03.30.2011
We shouldn’t give up with science. Without it, we wouldn’t know all about this stuff anyways. It’s the best instrument we have at the moment. Let’s just keep working on it.
KT said on 04.08.2011
Science is about explaining observations. It is a system and it works. Of course, I am referring to good science.
I wish that more people would understand that science is not meant to be antagonistic to current faith and belief systems. However, yes, it is unfortunately being used as such a tool by those whom are emotionally driven. As if we were intelligent enough to fully comprehend our world…
james said on 04.22.2011
im just glad so many people are digging quantum physics these days
Martin Walsh said on 04.25.2011
“If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don’t understand quantum mechanics.”
- Richard Feynman
but rest assured electromagnetic fields or gravitational fields are not responsible for this phenomenon and to think in such macroscopic terms is to completely miss the point.
The closest thing to a true statement you can say about quantum mechanics is that when you’re observing an electron it is real. When you’re not, its probably real and probably not.
Samy said on 06.05.2011
What if the purpose of human life was to create observers to align free chaotic matter?
Zack said on 04.10.2012
Mind.Fuuuuck.
Tina said on 06.17.2011
The observer affects the observed :)
Yes, this totally mindfucked me. But in that other experiment with the nanaseconds/speed of light…that whole shebang…they only changed their course 93% of the time…
Then what did they do the other 7% of the time? Isn’t that what they wanted to know in the first place? How the particles can be everywhere and nowhere at once?
Ray Butler said on 06.24.2011
if we can change the way they universe behaves simply by observing it, it poses the question; what else are we wrong about? I mean science is based on observed results how do we know if the results gained as scientific fact are actual? like a tree falling in the woods, if no one is there to hear it does it make a sound, well if no one is there perhaps it does not fall but simply respawns as fallen once someone arrives to observe it.
Tom Brenner said on 07.06.2011
If you’ve seen Down the Rabbit Hole then you realize that intention does affect our reality. If this is true why wouldn’t our observing affect the reality of the electrons? A lot of people watch that movie and slap the title new age on it to generalize when really quantum mechanics might be the next quantum leap in science. It relates completely to string theory which is also considered crazy talk by some “respected scientists.” Here is a great link to a bunch of quantum mechanics demonstrations. http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/topic.html?topic=Quantum+Mechanics&limit=20
Thalassinus said on 07.19.2011
Quote – Aurelius Augustine (354-430 CE), more widely known as St Augustine, was born in 354.
“When things in the future (that is, which are to be) are said to be seen, it is not the things in themselves that are seen, which as yet do not exist, but their causes, perhaps, or their signs, which already exist. Therefore they are not in the future but in the present to those who now see that from which the future is foretold, being conceived ahead of time in the mind. These conceptions, again, are in the present. And those who forecast such things see the concept of what they forecast present before them. ”
“I behold the dawn, I expect that the sun is about to rise. What I see, is present; what I expect, is yet to come—not the sun, which already is, but the sun-rising, which is not yet. . . Future things then are not yet: and if they are not yet, they are not: and if they are not, they cannot be seen; yet they may be forecast from things present, which already exist and can be seen. “
Sandra Dudas said on 07.31.2011
Okay, that display with the free electrons being blasted through slits in metal is pretty impossible to achieve in the first place but let us deduce.
Free electrons not attached to an atom of some sort is electricity and must be conducted and held within a containment device thus not to lose the electron to other atoms seeking an electron. Free floating electrons all over the place would just be drawn to the atoms that require an electron to balance, so they would never reach the metal wall thing.
Secondly, metal repels electrons because metal atoms for the most part are trying to get rid of an electron as is so not attraction there.
Furthermore, the electrons are not going to make any sequence on a metal anything for the fact that metal conducts electricity and the electrons would actually pass through if lauched with enough velocity to get the electron past the general attractions of the atoms in the area.
Think of the balls that create the static with the lightning looking lightening. Those are contained electrons, glass does not conduct the electricity or electrons but see the electrons attracted immediately to a person trying to dispurse the electrons who are all deflecting each other.
I thought I was going to find more people like me at this site, but if you watch that and are amazed by it. Go take high school physics, or even chemistry might give you enough about the activities of an electron.
Sandra Dudas said on 07.31.2011
Hey, even further whoa wait a minute.
An electron has mass but no size, so it is not generally accepted as matter because it takes up no space. Matter must have mass and take up space with that mass. Ummmm, not a very smart person who created that segment.
john said on 08.07.2011
Wow, you apparently just solved one of the most baffling experiments in quantum mechanics and all of physics for that matter.
Actually….. it is very, very possible to create an electron gun, (the animation is obviously a simplification) and there might be one in your tv right now. Its called a cathode ray tube and the electrons travel through a vacuum, nearing the speed of light. However creating one that shoots one electron at a time is vastly more complicated.
Also, the entire point of the experiment isn’t just about electrons; its the behavior of very small particles. You can do part of this experiment in your living room. Just get a laser pointer and two slits and behold wave particle duality of photons. Now we know electrons behave in the same dualistic way, and there have more recently been experiments with buckyball molecules which are on the order of half a million times bigger than PROTONS, that have showed identical results. Something is obviously not understood yet. One thing to keep in mind is that it is only when the absolute observation of individual particles is achieved when things start to alter. Looking with a magnifying glass doesn’t change a thing.
Everything taught in HS chem. and phys. was discovered at least half a century ago and it hardly explains modern research. Just know the smartest PhD’s in the world are working on this stuff everyday so the answer probably isn’t so simple.
cynikal said on 09.30.2011
My understanding of this rather unusual article is that it must lead to a paradox.
The article states that “The mere act of observation can completely change the outcome of an event!”. However, it is impossible for us to know what the electron would have done if we had not observed it.
The author of the article, and the group of scientists who organized the experiment, argue that they also did the experiment in such a way that the photon could not know it was being observed.
First, the observer’s effect:
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics) , does not say the electron needs to know about this, it just states that the act of observation might change the phenomenon.
However, I will look past this initial skepticism and move onto the article’s treatment of the electron. “This means in order for the photon to “know” if it was being watched, that information would have to travel at 4 times the speed of light, which is impossible (the speed of light is the universal speed limit).”
First, the speed of light might not be the universal speed limit, after CERN measuring neutrinos moving faster than light. ( seeing how this has not yet been established, for the rest of this reply to the article, I will overlook this unaccuracy)
Second, the photon knowing anything, is not something we can depart from. It could be an incredible conclusion, however we should turn every stone before we go shouting out crazy statements.
Third, the article says it has made sure the photons could not know anything about what was happening. Now, nothing has ever pointed towards the fact that photons can think or remember anything at all. If we have never known that photons could think, how can we make sure they do not know anything about what is happening. Here my skepticism is due to the fact that if you had never known a stone could register what is happening, it just shows how little we know about the stone, thus making it impossible to ensure the information does not reach the stone before we obtain measurements.
Having said all this, the experiment seems interesting. However, all these conclusions seem to be quite far-fetched!
Kayla said on 11.04.2011
All I can say is… my mind is blown. This article has brought up so many internal questions.. I could sit here all day realizeing what odd and amazing things this could correspond with.
Andrew said on 11.05.2011
What is the difference between putting the camera there to observe at the atomic level and observing the interference pattern as a human? Is it the seeing of what the particle actually does at the slits?
Here is an idea, purely made up this second, when a aerofoil travels forward the air parts to go above and below well ahead of the leading edge as it moves.
What if the absorption of particles or whatever happens to enable the sensor/camera to detect whats happening sets up a disturbance in the area before the slit?
Lexx Shurlock said on 01.29.2012
I watched this at school recently, it did indeed mind fuck me.
barh said on 03.14.2012
Maybe time changing changes the outcome of observing quarks. Because time can slow but never stop or go back or speed up….
Actually I was trying to quantify Neville Goddards rantings on believing in change, feeling of change CREATES change. I’m going away now…..
Thalassinus said on 03.15.2012
back to the age old question….if a tree falls in the forest and noone is around…. does it make a noise? infact does it even fall?
if someone was there watching it, would it fall differently.
the brain hurts.
tony said on 03.20.2012
Great article, this is proof that we shape the world around us. Thank you for everybody that co-created everything good in my life!
I would like to say that the universal speed limit isn’t the speed of light, the speed of light has been exceeded, and also there isn’t much of a way to tell if the speed of light was faster and lost energy (2nd law of thermodynamics.)
This means in order for the photon to “know” if it was being watched, that information would have to travel at 4 times the speed of light, which is impossible (the speed of light is the universal speed limit).
I would say it is improbable, not impossible.
This is a wonderful article though, thank you!
tony said on 03.20.2012
You are right though, this entire world is made from tiny things, so if our observation affects the tiny, then how could it not affect the large.
Everything is only vibration really, when you go down to the smallest particles they haven’t got any mass, they are just vibrations.
People have known before quantum physics that the mind shapes the world. Einstein knew it, he said imagination is more important than knowledge, he also said the human brain is a transmitter and receiver of vibration, frequency or energy.
We know that everything in this world is just energy vibrating at a certain frequency, and our brains do affect physical matter, its been proven. It was known before anybody could prove it also.
Wonderful article!
erravan said on 05.05.2012
While this demonstrates that there are still things we don’t know about workings of our universe, that does not mean that people can start filling in the blank. This doesn’t mean anything until it means something. Give it some time. This happens all too often in science, where scientists treat the material with appropriate circumspection while a charlatan like Deepak Chopra gets rich filling in the blanks with bogus self-help philosophy, or religious apologists springboard into arguments defending creationism, etc…
At the end of the day, you are best off waiting for the details to come in, so it is a moot point. You must live thoughtfully with intention, whether the universe has a mind or not.