Observing changes the outcome how can we observe?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Teo1
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the observer effect in physics, particularly its implications for observable events. It asserts that the observer is inherently part of any observation, leading to questions about the validity of past observations. However, it is clarified that the effects of observation are minimal and primarily significant at the quantum level, where photons influence subatomic particles. While there are theoretical discussions about potential macroscopic effects, these remain largely speculative. The conversation emphasizes that human perception is limited and imperfect, suggesting that the universe functions independently of observers. It argues that the observer effect may be temporal and that our understanding of cosmology relies on current quantum theories, which are fundamentally observational. The notion that the universe could have been created with all its properties intact is acknowledged as a logically unassailable idea, highlighting the complexity of scientific interpretations beyond traditional views.
Teo1
[SOLVED] Observing changes the outcome.. how can we observe?

Since it is now known that the observer is part of ANY observable event, don't we need to redo oh so many so called factual observations?

Is it even possible to observe something without the observer changing the outcome?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Teo1 said:
Since it is now known that the observer is part of ANY observable event, don't we need to redo oh so many so called factual observations?

No.

Is it even possible to observe something without the observer changing the outcome?

No. Since we understand this, and have for about 80 years, this had been taken into consideration. In fact the last 80 of physics have been filled with discussions and experiments designed to test and understand this fact.

It is important to realize that the effects of observing are very, very small, and are typically only significant at the quantum level. We are usually talking about the effects photons on other subatomic particles. There are a couple of schools of thought resutling from Quantum Mechanics that hint at deeper, macroscopic effects, that is effects for large objects, but this stuff is still highly theoretical and but one or two interpretations that compete with about a dozen other theories.
 
Last edited:
It is true that no observation of any kind can be made with any amount of accuracy, but for a more important reason than the effets of that observation.

We forget sometimes that we view the world with an imperfect tool, and will never even hope to fully comprehend anything we observe. Pidgeons can see geometrical patterns in light, and dolphins can change the frequency of their communications. Face it, we are not all knowing, and can never hope to be.
 
The universe evolved just fine without any observers [er, us in particular] for a very long time. The universe has also been kind enough to let us watch the video of how it all happened. The fact it is behaving in exactly the same way now as it did long before we even existed, suggests the observer effect is temporal, at best.
 
Chronos said:
The universe evolved just fine without any observers [er, us in particular] for a very long time. The universe has also been kind enough to let us watch the video of how it all happened. The fact it is behaving in exactly the same way now as it did long before we even existed, suggests the observer effect is temporal, at best.

How do you know all this? Our understanding of cosmology is based on our present day quantum theories, which are radiacally observational (at least in the most common interpretation). AFAIK the stupid creationist idea that the universe was created yesterday with all its properties, like CMB, and the records of all the scientific experiments all up to date to fool us, is logically undefeatable. Not that I'm proposing it, just suggesting that everything isn't as cut and dried as 19th century scientists believed.
 
Just ONCE, I wanted to see a post titled Status Update that was not a blatant, annoying spam post by a new member. So here it is. Today was a good day here in Northern Wisconsin. Fall colors are here, no mosquitos, no deer flies, and mild temperature, so my morning run was unusually nice. Only two meetings today, and both went well. The deer that was road killed just down the road two weeks ago is now fully decomposed, so no more smell. Somebody has a spike buck skull for their...
Thread 'In the early days of electricity, they didn't have wall plugs'
Hello scientists, engineers, etc. I have not had any questions for you recently, so have not participated here. I was scanning some material and ran across these 2 ads. I had posted them at another forum, and I thought you may be interested in them as well. History is fascinating stuff! Some houses may have had plugs, but many homes just screwed the appliance into the light socket overhead. Does anyone know when electric wall plugs were in widespread use? 1906 ad DDTJRAC Even big...
Back
Top