Atoms Won’t Move When They’re Being Watched

Remember playing Super Mario Bros. 3 as a kid (okay, maybe as an adult, too) and encountering Boos? The sneaky ghosts would only move when you weren’t watching them.

Well, Cornell physicists proved that, much like the fictional enemies from the Mario universe, a quantum system can’t change while you’re watching it. Of course, the actual process is a little different, and has more to do with how we are able (or not able) to measure the world of the very tiny.

Terrible, misleading summary.

dv said:

Terrible, misleading summary.

So clarify……..

Postpocelipse said:

Atoms Won’t Move When They’re Being Watched

Remember watching the weeping angels on Dr Who? The sneaky aliens would only move when you weren’t watching them.

Well, Cornell physicists proved that, much like the fictional enemies from the Dr Who universe, a quantum system can’t change while you’re watching it. Of course, the actual process is a little different, and has more to do with how we are able (or not able) to measure the world of the very tiny.

> the physics of materials cooled to temperatures as low as .000000001 above absolute zero.

Well, at that temperature you wouldn’t expect them to move would you? (Just joking, very similar things have been observed at least several times before).

mollwollfumble said:

Postpocelipse said:

Atoms Won’t Move When They’re Being Watched

Remember watching the weeping angels on Dr Who? The sneaky aliens would only move when you weren’t watching them.

Well, Cornell physicists proved that, much like the fictional enemies from the Dr Who universe, a quantum system can’t change while you’re watching it. Of course, the actual process is a little different, and has more to do with how we are able (or not able) to measure the world of the very tiny.

> the physics of materials cooled to temperatures as low as .000000001 above absolute zero.

Well, at that temperature you wouldn’t expect them to move would you? (Just joking, very similar things have been observed at least several times before).

They do state that when the laser suspension was removed the atoms retturned to the natural lattice formation.

Postpocelipse said:

mollwollfumble said:

Postpocelipse said:

Atoms Won’t Move When They’re Being Watched

Remember watching the weeping angels on Dr Who? The sneaky aliens would only move when you weren’t watching them.

Well, Cornell physicists proved that, much like the fictional enemies from the Dr Who universe, a quantum system can’t change while you’re watching it. Of course, the actual process is a little different, and has more to do with how we are able (or not able) to measure the world of the very tiny.

> the physics of materials cooled to temperatures as low as .000000001 above absolute zero.

Well, at that temperature you wouldn’t expect them to move would you? (Just joking, very similar things have been observed at least several times before).

They do state that when the laser suspension was removed the atoms retturned to the natural lattice formation.

I don’t think one could expect the Zeno Effect to be present in heated atoms due to their being linked to a global EM field. Cooled atoms have a stronger internal field than is present in the surrounding environment so should exhibit these types of behavior.

From TAtE:

“ In the context of this effect, an “observation” can simply be the absorption of a particle, without an observer in any conventional sense”

So why do people always describe these things in terms of “observation”, as though it was the act of observing that was important, rather than any type of interaction?

The Rev Dodgson said:

From TAtE:

“ In the context of this effect, an “observation” can simply be the absorption of a particle, without an observer in any conventional sense”

So why do people always describe these things in terms of “observation”, as though it was the act of observing that was important, rather than any type of interaction?

It’s snobby physics talk……

Postpocelipse said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

From TAtE:

“ In the context of this effect, an “observation” can simply be the absorption of a particle, without an observer in any conventional sense”

So why do people always describe these things in terms of “observation”, as though it was the act of observing that was important, rather than any type of interaction?

It’s snobby physics talk……

I assume it is to encourage people to actually investigate what they are interested in rather than just make vague interpretations.

i think the use of “observation” is just a historical artefact.

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

From TAtE:

“ In the context of this effect, an “observation” can simply be the absorption of a particle, without an observer in any conventional sense”

So why do people always describe these things in terms of “observation”, as though it was the act of observing that was important, rather than any type of interaction?

It’s snobby physics talk……

I assume it is to encourage people to actually investigate what they are interested in rather than just make vague interpretations.

It seems to me that it does the exact opposite of that.

The Rev Dodgson said:

From TAtE:

“ In the context of this effect, an “observation” can simply be the absorption of a particle, without an observer in any conventional sense”

So why do people always describe these things in terms of “observation”, as though it was the act of observing that was important, rather than any type of interaction?

Presumably because they’re basing their summaries on experimental evidence that did actually involve humans making measurements.

On noes! First sharks, now sea serpents

It seems to me that it does the exact opposite of that.

It encouraged me to investigate. There is also the consideration that the term has been applied to referencing a larger portion of theory that requires a technical definition of the term.

Fred ———>

On reading the wave particle paradox the observation bit threw me. How I wondered could humans be so important that looking at something would change it? It was almost always described as the act of watching it changed the result which to my mind made the human an active agent modifying just by watching.

I think the technical definition of observation is, the measurement of the path of one particle by another

It was almost always described as the act of watching it changed the result which to my mind made the human an active agent modifying just by watching.

a common misconception that you still see “out there” on the web. we are just so used to being the “observer”.

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

From TAtE:

“ In the context of this effect, an “observation” can simply be the absorption of a particle, without an observer in any conventional sense”

So why do people always describe these things in terms of “observation”, as though it was the act of observing that was important, rather than any type of interaction?

Presumably because they’re basing their summaries on experimental evidence that did actually involve humans making measurements.

They should try it with chimps

The Rev Dodgson said:

From TAtE:

“ In the context of this effect, an “observation” can simply be the absorption of a particle, without an observer in any conventional sense”

So why do people always describe these things in terms of “observation”, as though it was the act of observing that was important, rather than any type of interaction?

I don’t know. This effect would be real even if humans, or life, never existed.

dv said:

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

From TAtE:

“ In the context of this effect, an “observation” can simply be the absorption of a particle, without an observer in any conventional sense”

So why do people always describe these things in terms of “observation”, as though it was the act of observing that was important, rather than any type of interaction?

Presumably because they’re basing their summaries on experimental evidence that did actually involve humans making measurements.

They should try it with chimps

Or perhaps use machines to make the measurements, and only look at them later.

I’m surprised no-one has thought of that.

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

Bubblecar said:

Presumably because they’re basing their summaries on experimental evidence that did actually involve humans making measurements.

They should try it with chimps

Or perhaps use machines to make the measurements, and only look at them later.

I’m surprised no-one has thought of that.

;-)

dv said:

I don’t know. This effect would be real even if humans, or life, never existed.

Actually we’re not entitled to say that, because we don’t know if a lifeless universe could actually exist.

Bubblecar said:

dv said:

I don’t know. This effect would be real even if humans, or life, never existed.

Actually we’re not entitled to say that, because we don’t know if a lifeless universe could actually exist.

errrrr

Dropbear said:

Bubblecar said:

dv said:

I don’t know. This effect would be real even if humans, or life, never existed.

Actually we’re not entitled to say that, because we don’t know if a lifeless universe could actually exist.

errrrr

We can model a universe that’s like ours but with no life in it, but it’s just a model, so its properties are not actually “real”.

Bubblecar said:

dv said:

I don’t know. This effect would be real even if humans, or life, never existed.

Actually we’re not entitled to say that, because we don’t know if a lifeless universe could actually exist.

Well that seems a bold statement and counter to conventional cosmology and causality.

dv said:

Bubblecar said:

dv said:

I don’t know. This effect would be real even if humans, or life, never existed.

Actually we’re not entitled to say that, because we don’t know if a lifeless universe could actually exist.

Well that seems a bold statement and counter to conventional cosmology and causality.

In what way?

Bubblecar said:

dv said:

Bubblecar said:

Actually we’re not entitled to say that, because we don’t know if a lifeless universe could actually exist.

Well that seems a bold statement and counter to conventional cosmology and causality.

In what way?

In that the normal understanding is that life cannot have existed in the very early universe. Covalent chemical compounds couldn’t have existed, full stop.

Life on earth arose perhaps 3.8 billion years ago, fairly recently in the scheme of things. It may (or may not) have arisen previously elsewhere in the universe but we can certainly have a universe without life: before the stars formed and the planets cooled, there was almost certainly no life.

Bubblecar said:

dv said:

Bubblecar said:

Actually we’re not entitled to say that, because we don’t know if a lifeless universe could actually exist.

Well that seems a bold statement and counter to conventional cosmology and causality.

In what way?

In the way that the conditions for life is a recent event in terms of the age of the universe, realising early universe was very hot, is my non-physicist reasoning

dv said:

In that the normal understanding is that life cannot have existed in the very early universe. Covalent chemical compounds couldn’t have existed, full stop.

Life on earth arose perhaps 3.8 billion years ago, fairly recently in the scheme of things. It may (or may not) have arisen previously elsewhere in the universe but we can certainly have a universe without life: before the stars formed and the planets cooled, there was almost certainly no life.

Yes but you said “never existed”, which means not ever, which I took to mean in an eternal sense.

Bubblecar said:

dv said:

In that the normal understanding is that life cannot have existed in the very early universe. Covalent chemical compounds couldn’t have existed, full stop.

Life on earth arose perhaps 3.8 billion years ago, fairly recently in the scheme of things. It may (or may not) have arisen previously elsewhere in the universe but we can certainly have a universe without life: before the stars formed and the planets cooled, there was almost certainly no life.

Yes but you said “never existed”, which means not ever, which I took to mean in an eternal sense.

Very well.

Prior to the existence of life in the universe, we can accept that the Zeno effect would still have obtained. It still will after the last life has been extinguished from the universe. It relates to the nature of quantum mechanics, not the existence of any putative observers.

dv said:

Life on earth arose perhaps 3.8 billion years ago, fairly recently in the scheme of things. It may (or may not) have arisen previously elsewhere in the universe but we can certainly have a universe without life: before the stars formed and the planets cooled, there was almost certainly no life.

Sounds peaceful. Personally I believe this was the period Pan was getting around the universe making sure it was covered in his sperms……….

dv said:

Very well.

Prior to the existence of life in the universe, we can accept that the Zeno effect would still have obtained. It still will after the last life has been extinguished from the universe. It relates to the nature of quantum mechanics, not the existence of any putative observers.

Of course.

Although you know what they say about quantum mechanics.

Bubblecar said:

dv said:

Very well.

Prior to the existence of life in the universe, we can accept that the Zeno effect would still have obtained. It still will after the last life has been extinguished from the universe. It relates to the nature of quantum mechanics, not the existence of any putative observers.

Of course.

Although you know what they say about quantum mechanics.

It is a fascinating field that revolutionized our view of the universe?

dv said:

Bubblecar said:

dv said:

Very well.

Prior to the existence of life in the universe, we can accept that the Zeno effect would still have obtained. It still will after the last life has been extinguished from the universe. It relates to the nature of quantum mechanics, not the existence of any putative observers.

Of course.

Although you know what they say about quantum mechanics.

It is a fascinating field that revolutionized our view of the universe?

no, the other “they”

Dropbear said:

dv said:

Bubblecar said:

Of course.

Although you know what they say about quantum mechanics.

It is a fascinating field that revolutionized our view of the universe?

no, the other “they”

It’s too hard?

The quote I was wanting was along the lines of: “Anyone who says they understand it doesn’t understand it”.

well that went in the wrong thread…….

Bubblecar said:

The quote I was wanting was along the lines of: “Anyone who says they understand it doesn’t understand it”.

oh yeh I think Brendon said that

Bubblecar said:

The quote I was wanting was along the lines of: “Anyone who says they understand it doesn’t understand it”.

That’s just silly.

dv said:

Bubblecar said:

The quote I was wanting was along the lines of: “Anyone who says they understand it doesn’t understand it”.

That’s just silly.

But reassuring for those of us who don’t understand it.

dv said:

Bubblecar said:

The quote I was wanting was along the lines of: “Anyone who says they understand it doesn’t understand it”.

That’s just silly.

well he was a silly ol Bohr

Bubblecar said:

dv said:

Bubblecar said:

The quote I was wanting was along the lines of: “Anyone who says they understand it doesn’t understand it”.

That’s just silly.

But reassuring for those of us who don’t understand it.

Well you’re saying you don’t understand it so that means that you do.

dv said:

Well you’re saying you don’t understand it so that means that you do.

Those who say they don’t understand it also don’t understand it.

dv said:

Bubblecar said:

dv said:

That’s just silly.

But reassuring for those of us who don’t understand it.

Well you’re saying you don’t understand it so that means that you do.

The Bubblecar Effect. A particle that is understood will remain understood till it’s not understood………

Bubblecar said:

dv said:

Well you’re saying you don’t understand it so that means that you do.

Those who say they don’t understand it also don’t understand it.

Maybe the chimps know.

dv said:

Bubblecar said:

dv said:

Well you’re saying you don’t understand it so that means that you do.

Those who say they don’t understand it also don’t understand it.

Maybe the chimps know.

I hear they’ve reached the stone age now. they’ll have organised religion before you know it

Dropbear said:

dv said:

Bubblecar said:

Those who say they don’t understand it also don’t understand it.

Maybe the chimps know.

I hear they’ve reached the stone age now. they’ll have organised religion before you know it

First they have to develop disorganized religion.