Consciousness Affects Matter and Thus Reality

[guru1000]

Invest 40 minutes into these two videos. This may change how some of you understand the power of your mind (or shall we say consciousness) as it applies to reality:

1)

2) Once you understand this video, move on to this:

In a nutshell, consciousness, irrespective of distance, affects matter.

 

[byers90]

Neville Goddard was speaking about this back in the 40's...he is the best in my opinion if you are into this stuff.

 

[guru1000]

@Grewd , let's continue our convo here. And to anyone else who sees and understands the two videos above, feel free to chime in:

Notice in Video One, the electron becomes a particle or operates differently upon a measuring mechanism "watching" it.

Notice in Video Two, the electron becomes a particle or operates differently (within 1-2 standard deviations) upon consciousness thinking upon it.

Accordingly:

1) The electron is aware it's being watched/measured/monitored and thus the electron is conscious; or

2) The measuring device (in Video 1) and people's consciousness (in Video 2) emanate similar energy which acts upon the electron in the same way; or

3) In Video 1, before the measuring device was placed, the experimenter's thoughts and consciousness already emanated the energy, and this energy stayed in place to act upon the electron thereafter. In this scenario, it would mean that thought energy does not dissolve immediately, it stays in the area (for some time);

Or?

Thoughts?

 

[Serenity]

I just want to make it clear that all 3 of your scenarios are speculation. It is not known how and why either observing or even thinking about it affects it. At least not beyond the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. This is basically the practical version of Schrodinger's cat, you don't know if the cat exists before you open the box and take a look. It's only at the moment of observation it is determined if it exists or not.

To anyone joining our conversation, uncertainty is not broken by thinking about the particles mentioned in his second video. The probability distribution is affected though, meaning it gets slightly less random.
In the first video there's the typical double slit experiment with a measuring device, this type of direct measurement and observation completely breaks the wave function. Meaning it starts behaving like a particle forming 2 lines as one would expect shooting particles through 2 slits.

In case someone want to better understand the difference between particles and waves, and how observation affects it here's a great video illustrating it.

 

[guru1000]

Grewd, the second experiment is new research. We don’t understand the “why.” We could only theorize why and hence the topic. Here, again, are my three theories:

1) The electron is aware it's being watched/measured/monitored and thus the electron is conscious; or

2) The measuring device (in Video 1) and people's consciousness (in Video 2) emanate similar energy which acts upon the electron in the similar ways; or

3) In Video 1, before the measuring device was placed, the experimenter's thoughts and consciousness already emanated the energy, and this energy stayed in place to act upon the electron thereafter. In this scenario, it would mean that thought energy does not dissolve immediately, it stays in the area (for some time);

I’m inclined to agree with Theory Three as just as when a cell phone is turned off while a text message is sent to it, the energy remains until at least the phone is tuned back on to receive the text message.

Accordingly, the thought of the electron before placing the tracking device to monitor it could be the catalyst to act upon the electron's probability distribution, and the tracking device has no connection with the electron's behavior. So with or without the tracking device, the electron would respond accordingly (although we wouldn’t know without the tracking device). In the first experiment, the "thought" shuts down the electron's wave function because of the proximity and strength of the researcher's "thought energy."

Or? Any other theories as to the "Why." Let's make this a productive discussion and think a little bit.

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

4 Common Misconceptions About Quantum Physics

1. No Indication That Entanglement Transfers Information

Quantum entanglement is a phenomenon in which pairs or groups of particles that have been in contact with each other seem to remain connected over vast distances. When actions are performed on one of the particles, corresponding changes are observed on the others.

Some have said that this entanglement may explain psi phenomena (psi refers to psychic phenomena, including telepathy, clairvoyance, et cetera).
Some have said that this entanglement may explain psiphenomena.


Garret Moddel, an engineering professor at the University of Colorado who has worked extensively with quantum mechanics, warned that the effect “is a very subtle one. It’s not a causal effect, it’s a correlational effect. What the distinction between those two is requires a rather patient and detailed explanation.”

“People tend to think that quantum entanglement means that when I shake one particle, I’ll be able to see the effect on another, but that’s not so,” he said. “It’s been shown quite rigorously that you cannot use quantum entanglement to convey information, only to convey correlation. So, it’s not a signaling mechanism.”

“It’s possible that psi and the whole world works by correlation and not transfer of information in a causal way, but that’s a much deeper discussion.”

2. Consciousness Is Not Necessarily the Key to Collapsing the Wave-Function

The observer effect in quantum physics is often seen as the most shocking and interesting aspect of quantum physics. The outcome of a particular action—the wave-function collapse—is suspended until it is observed. This seems to suggest that human consciousness is able to physically affect an experiment. But, Moddel warned, it is not generally thought by physicists that consciousness is necessary to collapse the wave-function.
A detector is sufficient, as most physicists see it. Of course, it is possible that a human checking the detector is the key, but quantum physics as it is generally conceived does not currently hold this to be necessary.

Astrophysicist Mario Livio also discussed this misconception in a post on NASA’s “A Curious Mind” blog. He wrote: “Perhaps the most common misconception is that the observer plays a crucial role in the uncertainty principle—namely, that the principle really stems from the influence of the observer of the phenomenon being observed. This misunderstanding has even led some to conclude that the principle could be directly applied to a variety of everyday experiences.”

3. It Doesn’t Only Describe the Subatomic Level

Achim Kempf, a professor of mathematical physics at the University of Waterloo in Canada, explained via email that quantum physics does not only describe phenomena at very small scales and only in special circumstances.

“In reality, quantum physics determines most of what we see in daily life, such as the color, elasticity, and heat capacity of everyday things such as water, rocks, metals, and also biological matter. On larger scales, the way in which stars, in their interior, fuse primordial hydrogen into the elements of the periodic system is also governed by quantum physics,” he said.

“Our universe itself may have arisen from a quantum fluctuation inside a mother universe.”
— Achim Kempf, University of Waterloo

Furthermore, researchers speculate that our universe may have inflated so rapidly during its genesis that quantum fluctuations were “dragged along and thereby stretched to cosmological size.”

“Our universe itself may have arisen from a quantum fluctuation inside a mother universe,” he said. Though this hypothesis fits with the current standard model of cosmology, however, no concrete evidence has supported it so far, Kempf said.

4. Speaking of a ‘Wave-Particle Duality’ Is Not Exactly Correct

It’s a popular conception that in quantum mechanics microscopic objects, such as electrons or photons, are neither pure particles nor pure waves—they are both waves and particles. In some conditions they behave as waves, in some conditions, they behave as particles.

Serious textbooks on quantum mechanics, however, only talk about waves, or wave-functions, noted theoretical physicist Hrvoje Nikolic of the Rudjer Boskovic Institute in Croatia in a 2008 paper titled, “Quantum Mechanics: Myths and Facts.”

“The word ‘particle’ has a very different meaning than the same word in classical physics.”
— Hrvoje Nikolic, Rudjer Boskovic Institute

“Electrons and photons always behave as waves, while a particle-like behavior corresponds only to a special case. In this sense, the wave-particle duality is nothing but a myth,” he said. We can say that electrons and photons are “particles,” if we keep in mind that “the word ‘particle’ has a very different meaning than the same word in classical physics,” Nikolic said. But this is a matter of linguistics. They are waves according to the usual interpretation.

The De Broglie-Bohm interpretation of quantum mechanics, he said, comes close to a kind of wave-particle duality, but it still treats “particles” very differently than “particles” are treated in classical physics. The De Broglie-Bohm is not one of the most popular interpretations.

 

[guru1000]

Good article TO, but the second experiment is recent and supersedes some of the specific knowledge you quoted:

But, Moddel warned, it is not generally thought by physicists that consciousness is necessary to collapse the wave-function.
A detector is sufficient, as most physicists see it. Of course, it is possible that a human checking the detector is the key, but quantum physics as it is generally conceived does not currently hold this to be necessary.

As the second experiment proves, consciousness indeed affects the probability distribution of the electron to a significant measurable degree, though not to the extent of fully collapsing the wave-function like in the first experiment.

 

[BeExcellent]

Further, as Radin notes in his comments, because the effect is marginal, it could be considered as artifact or noise unless one is actively looking for a certain signal within the noise. This is in fact what they observed. And when they ran meta analysis from the hundreds of previous similar experiments over a number of decades (but adding the knowledge of knowing WHERE to look and WHAT FOR) they saw that previous experiments showed the same signal, only it was missed by the investigators.

The other thing that I found fascinating about the recent experiment is the difference in result between trained meditators and non-meditators. Those who have trained their ability to focus had the most statistically significant results and the statistical power indicates that this was in no way a random effect.

Fascinating. What if by our thoughts we can ACTUALLY influence the world around us, the people around us. What if George Lucas and his Jedi are correct after all? After all, wasn't all that a product of his mind? Would you agree Lucas has vastly influenced the world around himself?

"These are NOT the droids you're looking for...."

May be the Force be with You.

Cheers

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

As the second experiment proves,

Nothing is proven. Only postulated. This is one interpretation of quantum physics that not many physicists hold.

I tend to see "experiments" like the one you listed as scientists attempting to generate interest in the general public in a hope to achieve funding.

Quantum physics, nor everything else in the universe, requires humans to help it along.

Even if an advanced meditator COULD collapse the wave function, so what? Collapsing a wave of one particle is a long way from lifting crashed space ships out of swamps.

Humans like to think we are important, that we can affect wave functions and change the climate of the Earth. I disagree with both of those. We are primates who have learned how to speak, and our large thinking capacity is a secondary affect of the main function of our brain.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B006F2182G/

We humans like to think we are important and are the center of the universe. We are talking monkeys and the main purpose of our brain is to get laid. The human brain is our version of the peacock's tail.

Quantum physics is certainly interesting, but we can't change the course or wave structure of an electron with thought power.

Our thought power is better used to make money and get laid, which is it's purpose. Not pushing electrons around.

 

[guru1000]

Quantum physics is certainly interesting, but we can't change the course or wave structure of an electron with thought power.

Unfortunately, research findings are what intelligent people use to render conclusions.

7:45: Meditator's thoughts collapsed the wave function by a measurable degree of 5 sigma result. When no one observed the electron, it resulted in the probability of “chance.”


13:36: Comparing human consciousness vs. a computer system designed to view the electron.

The human consciousness, regardless of distance, collapsed the wave function at a 5 sigma degree as opposed to the computer which resulted in the probability of chance.

5 sigma is a measure of how confident scientists feel their results are. If experiments show results to a 5 sigma confidence level, that means if the results were due to chance and the experiment was repeated 3.5 million times then it would be expected to see the strength of conclusion in the result no more than once.

Any counters to the conclusive evidence provided derived among tens of thousands of participants and a 5 sigma result?

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

Any counters to the conclusive evidence provided derived among tens of thousands of participants and a 5 sigma result?

I wouldn't call a guy on YouTube "conclusive evidence."

But believe whatever you like. I'm not interested in thread circles around Guru's awesome insights into consciousness.

Carry on.