There is compelling scientific evidence that the only time quanta ever actually manifest as particles is when we are looking at them.

Niels Bohr pointed out that if subatomic particles only come into existence in the presence of an observer, then it is also meaningless to speak of a particle's properties and characteristics as existing before they are observed.

A "quanta" is a hypothetical term for a unit of measurement of "stuff" that reality is made up of. It apparently does not exist until it is observed.

This translates to the fact that reality exists for and because of the observers in that reality.

So reality basically would not exist if there were no observers.

An observer as a "thinking center" is not confined to a human being thinking center. Any thinking center will suffice.

It could be just a roach. Consider a reality where only roaches existed. That reality would be one custom made for and by roaches.

Interesting.

I think therefore I am...

but because I think, other things are as well. So, is there a way to measure whether positive or negative thoughts will impact the result of the experiment?

Like with the cat in the box experiment.

Would it be more likely that the cat is alive if you wish for it to be alive when you open the box?

Yes I think so. You decide if the cat is alive or dead.

ok, depends on the cat though. There are some that I would rather seen blown into a trillion molecules to be spread across the stars!!!

What I am working on is the ability to ignore a problem to such a point that it disappears.

Schrödinger's cat was an example to show the conflict between quantum thery and reality. The main flaw in the example is that the cat is the observer, so there is no conflict.

Jeannie wrote:

"It apparently does not exist until it is observed"

......

Jeannie, Just because it does not APPEAR to exist until it is observed ,

doesn't mean it does not exist.

Quantum physics never said " it" does not EXIST until

observed.......

quantum physics says it does Not APPEAR( cannot be seen) until it

is observed.




Good example OF Quantum physics is found in the bible:

"Faith is the SUBSTANCE of things hoped for and the EVIDENCE

of things UNSEEN(not yet seen)."

Another bible scripture says:
:
"Call those things that be NOT as though they were."


Now,This scripture is NOT saying,

"Call those things that ARE as though they were NOT".

BIG difference .

Let's assume that's true. So Soandso builds a telescope and first sees Pluto. Why does Pluto exist? It comes into existence when Soandso looks at it, who designed the universe so that Pluto would exist when Soandso looked in the right place?

If a tree falls in the forest does it make a sound?

The better question is - did the tree really fall???

when you are walking through the forest and come across a downed tree, the assumption is it did fall. But your observation only shows that it is currently on the ground. You have no way to show that it did in fact fall and wasn't just that way until you found it.

Kind of like discovering Pluto. Was Pluto there the entire time before being discovered?

just so all of you guys know, we don't live in the matrix...just sayin

This is a variation of "If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?"

I say it does! Just becasue I am not there to hear it making a sound I can surmise from the sounds other trees have made when they fall while I was present to not discount the reality that a sound is made irrespective of me being there or not.

Now to confuse the sauce, I present the Meson. This is a particle that is supposed to travel back in time becasue it travels faster than the speed of light. With that in mind you cannot have them if they are not generated so one MUST begin the act of creating them to have them appear before you made them. How does this work? You build a Meson generator and a detector. before you actually press the button the mesons appear and them you press the button. You cannot have then unless the button is actually pressed.

Einstein's physics says if an object travels to the of the traveler sees a streak as the traveler passes them but in all reality they see time flow as they normally would. For the traveler though as they approach the speed of light time for the observer relative to them observing time outside of their craft would seem that time begins to slow down for them. In a way it is similar to a plane flying faster than the speed of sound where the Speed of Light traveler actually would manage to catch up to the wave of time. BUT once you hit the speed of light time is supposed to stop. So what happens if you manage to exceed the speed of light? Well, so far what we can detect of Mesons they appear to do just that and in doing so seem to go faster than time appearing before they are birthed. That is incorrect. They appear and then go backwards in time appearing as if they appeared then are generated.

So in Einsteinian physics as an object approaches the speed of light its mass is supposed to approach infinite. It is supposed to be a counterbalancing or "Drag Force" but that implies that mass is not absolute but changeable. This is a paradox since all mass is determined by a material's atomic structure. Since mass cannot technically increase for a given body this ideal smacks of the Infinite improbability Drive where an Object approaching the speed of light becomes an Infinite mass therefore becoming all of the universe for a brief moment. That means you are everywhere at once. if that were true we actually could be on the verge of space travel in a way we didn't before think possible. What do I mean?

Let us say we want to see Arcturus which is 37 light years away. Well we get on board our ship and get off of the earth to a safe distance so let us say it takes 2 hours to reach our jump point. In the mean time our computer is calculating our jump so when we get to where we are going we flip a switch and POOF! (Or Sparkle Sparkle Sparkle BLINK) there we are approaching the star Arcturus. 37 light years just that fast!

THAT IS THE WAY TO TRAVEL SPACE!

Yes, because when a tree falls, it produces a sound. It's partially the change from potential to actual energy.

Because I'm not a complete fool, I realize that a tree laying on the ground in the middle of a forest probably fell. If I were very interested, I could probably check the stump to see if there were signs of tools, but I think fallen trees aren't all that interesting as they are an everyday phenomenon that happens thousands of times a day throughout the world.

Yes, Pluto was there before it was discovered, because it's real.

"When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing -- they believe in anything." - GK Chesterton

the ship stays in the same place, it just moves the universe around it...

When an electron isn't being looked at, experimental findings suggest that it is always a wave. Physicists are able to draw this conclusion because they have devised clever strategies for deducing how an electron behaves when it is not being observed. (It should be noted that this is only one interpretation of the evidence and is not the conclusion of all physicists.) Bohm has a different interpretation.

Yes the cat is also an observer.

You can't be sure about that.

First of all, I do believe in God very much.

Second, I love the idea of the universe not playing along with our preconceived notions. In the days of Columbus, he was considered a fool because everyone thought he would sail off the end of the earth.

Just because we think we know something to be true does not mean we understand it.

Very basic concepts can be taken for granted.

Just because we think we understand the science behind it today, doesn't mean we are correct and there are not other forces at work of which we are not aware.

Einstein's theories currently explain our present observations. But they are theories in that, we cannot prove them to be true. So far all empirical evidence has supported them but have not proven them.

how did they know if they weren't looking at it?

They devised clever strategies for deducing how an electron behaves when it is not being observed.

No I don't know what those "clever strategies were. I'm not a scientist. I'm sure it is well documented in science journals.