Quantum Physics Double Slit Experiment

Yah, really interesting stuff. It all makes sense but no sense at all.

I think there are at least two What the Bleep movies, What the Bleep, and What the Bleep Do We Know, this being a clip from the former. Where I've only seen the one recently posted, the latter.

Ya, I've heard this is physics before, but it was explained so well here and with enthusiasm.

I still don't fully understand just how or why the "observer" inherently affects the outcome, but it is some amazing information.

And obviously what is being promoted, in these what the bleep films as well as "the secret" , is the idea that with our influence, this infinite reality possibility will form to our deepest will upon our viewing or willing of it through the law of attraction.

The trick is to have better control of that will, to believe in your own power over this apparently very real and basic scientific phenomenon that we have direct and indirect, or subconcious, impact upon.

The reason the observer affects the outcome has something to do with light. As you well know, a visual observer cannot observe without light. I wonder if someone could observe this slit test with non-optical senses. Maybe the electrons give off tiny vibrations which we could pick up on to see what they do with the lights off.

Do a little research Decius, it has everything to do with light. Einstein himself, convinced that the atomic world has an order to follow by, changed the conditions of the light to observe the electrons in the double slit test. Interestingly, at lower frequencies of light, the pattern that is caused by a wave length began to appear. However, it was caused only by those electrons which escaped detection due to the lower frequency of the light.

But you see, observation (the sense of sight in this example) is a direct result of LIGHT. There is nothing you can observe visually without light. Light is the prerequisite to visual observation. You would have an argument for what you are saying if the scientists were observing the electrons with sound (and produced the same results), then you're "thought alters their behavior" would have some ground to stand on. But you see, it seems these scientists have only observed with sight, and since light is a prerequisite to this sense, it is only logical to assume that light is the key factor in their change in behavior. So I think I am correct in my assumption and probably also the assumption of Einstien.

A "measuring device" does not indicate what tool or form of observation was used.

Your point about light could be irrelevant if no light was added for observation. If the observation was visual but merely used light already present for both observed and unobserved tests.

If they added light for the observation, than an unobserved test with added light could then be used to rule in or out its effect.

So untill we all know all of the factors and the history of the testing, past and present, obviously not covered in the most simplified of possible conveyances as this clip, than I hardly find it safe to assume much of anything.

Although I do believe light is the key factor that determines the electrons behavior, I would like to elaborate on the possibility that maybe something that is observed does alter its behavior. By the way, did either of you guys see the part in "What the bleep do we know?" where they talked about how water molecules change from thoughts? It was this example that got me thinking about thought changing the electrons behavior.

I remember times when I have been observed for a specific purpose that caused me to change my behavior. Maybe not so much change my behavior but made me choose my behavior. I was either going to obey or disobey. For instance, when I am alone playing the piano, I will play pieces how I think they ought to be played but if I were to play for a piano teacher who wanted it a specific way, I would definately play differently. I wonder if this is similar to what the electron is going through, assuming thought is the underlying factor. Just an interesting wondering.

Yah! When I saw that it immediately changed my idea of health. Also, towards the end of the movie where the guy talks about the aging process was very interesting. I was thinking that maybe if we had a perfect and optimistic state of mind with no negative thinking, we would live forever. Maybe immortality is within us all but requires perfectly clear thinking.

I watched this video and the first thing that sprang to my mind was string theory . Is this related to multiple universe type theories?

Slow down here.

I'm not a fan really of what the bleep on the whole. A lot of the new age hype people need help, or more conviction in what they believe, so caught up in how to live, they don't actually live.

The water crystal experiment was done by Dr. Masaru Emoto and he has slides of these experiments. He has a journal entry in one peer reviewed article; some wishy washy journal. Some of this might be right. But we dont know how he did this. He could simply have had 174 jars and added the same note on each and chose which matched best. I'm skeptical-one way to find out is to get the same glasses and try for yourselves. Get some friends to try too- it could be of course that its not really the word but the emotion behind the word that affects the outcome.

I'm not going to waste my time on it though-somethings are naturally obvious.

Don't know what the discussion is about, I tried twice to watch the video only to get page default about the time the prof went quatum?
Watching the beginning I remembered Decius Nitpicking comments in psychology forum. So proffessor electrons are charged particles, not just tiny particles of mass. So as electron emission like photons has a threashold & cascade effect, I am more than a little doubtful of singular electron particles being fired [noting the conceptual video uses a circular area as the impacting area on the target]. The allusion to particle emission to bullets being fired from a gun would tend more toward a shotgun pattern of pellets than single strand of bullets but then I thought a better allusion would be stream of water from a squirt gun? But then I thought the water is made up of individual molecules so then the defraction pattern shown is consistant with particle behavior to begin with? Just me nitpicking what video I did see.

What are thoughts?
are they particles of energy or of matter, or are those the same thing?

They thought maybe the light they shined on the electrons caused them to deviate? " "

I thought it was the act of looking at them that changed them?