Does anyone know what that idea in physics, that people change reality simply

[applegrove]

by being near each other is? Do you know what it is called?

[Callmecrazy]

1. I think it's called the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle

If you're referring to the theory that just observing an object will change that object. I think it's the HUP.

[applegrove]

2. Thanks.

[Warren DeMontague]

5. definition of the HUP. Like many things in QM, it is easily misinterpreted and misrepresented by

"What the bleep do we know" type folks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

Which is not to say QM isn't weird- it is. REAL weird.

[wandy]

3. Easy! Republicans, put a bunch of them together and Pow! Altered reality.......

http://conservative.org/cpac/2013/

Sorry. Couldn't resist.

[applegrove]

6. LOL!

[Warren DeMontague]

4. It sounds like you're chasing after some woo. That said, people do change reality by being near each

other. It's called gravity.

[TlalocW]

7. Be careful with that definition

A lot of woo-woo has come about in parapsychologists' circles because of a misunderstanding of one of the definitions - that you change something by observing it. People who believe in ESP, telepathy, etc. have bastardized this to "explain" how the crap they believe in works. And then it gets worse by thought experiments like Schroddinger's Cat or putting a white chess piece in one box and a black one in another and separating them by light years, etc., and people not understanding that they're thought experiments.

Observing, however, in this case means actively measuring something. It's mainly used in quantum physics, but you can also think about it this way: Say you have a simple electrical circuit with a resistor in it, but you don't know the resistance to it. So you get out your trusty ohmmeter and hook one wire to one side and another wire to the other side, but in doing so you have introduced an additional resistance (that of the ohmmeter) into the circuit. You're going to get a number pretty close to what it is but instead of the resistance being R, the total resistance is given by

1/R = 1/R1 + 1/R2 => R = R1*R2/(R1+R2),

which is the equation for finding resistance of resistors in parallel, which is what the resistor and the ohmmeter are

Here's how to think about it for quantum physics.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/science-questions/quantum-suicide2.htm

TlalocW

[hunter]

9. Except that's the wrong explanation. The reality is weirder than that.

The HowStuffWorks explanation is a simple explanation but as a simple analogy it is grossly inaccurate.

I don't like "woo" explanations either, but trying to dispel them with "reasonable" explanations that are wrong isn't helpful.

The more accurate explanation involves heavy math and is very, very weird compared to our everyday experiences. Yet we know it's a good model by both experiment and by the fact it has practical applications. Engineering and manufacturing modern computers and the internet requires a good working knowledge of quantum physics. At the scale of a modern microprocessor, computer memory, or hard drive, or in the light traveling down a fiber optic cable, the weirdness of quantum physics begins to assert itself.

At certain scales, not always very "small" scales (as certain quantum mechanical effects can span many light years) the models of the universe we are intuitively comfortable with fail.



Douible-slit experiment with single electrons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

At the scales of quantum physics we are no longer looking for a "hidden" predetermined states, say for a single electron or photon in a double-slit experiment, instead we are actually forcing an electron or proton to declare its state, which it does when it hits the screen. Until that single electron or photon hits the screen and its position is determined, even after it has passed through the two slits, it is identical to all the other electrons and photons in the experiment. There is no hidden information that causes a single particle to hit the detection screen in one place, and the next particle to hit the screen in another.

More here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser

For what it's worth, I'm a fan of John G. Cramer's Transactional Interpretation.

[longship]

8. That's not any physics I studied.

That sounds more like newage (rhymes with sewage) rubbish, like The Secret which apparently promises you that if you want a unicorn that farts rainbows, all you have to do is wish hard enough for it. Or like What the Bleep Do We Know!? which is put out by the cult of Ramtha, a kooky cult started by one JZ Knight (AKA Judith Darlene Hampton) who claims to channel Ramtha (undoubtedly in a cheesy Hindu accent), a Lemurian who fought Atlanteans some 35,000 years ago.

Many woo woo scammers and true believers adopt quantum physics because quantum physics is both very weird and very difficult, the former undoubtedly because of the latter. Most importantly, what gives the woo woo people the ability to co-opt the quantum is that almost nobody understands it. That provides a safe haven for the scammers and believers to just make shit up about the quanta. When they appear on TV, who's going to challenge what they say? Larry King? Oprah? Wolf Blitzer?

The kooks get a free pass because explaining quantum physics is very difficult without understanding the mathematics underpinning the theory. Even then, the concepts are still not intuitive.

The quantum world that exists at the micro level does not operate by the same rules as our macro world where all the craziness of the quantum averages out to nothing. What remains are a collection of emergent behaviors that we recognize as normal behavior in our macro world, all emergent from the rules at the quantum level.

But does it go the other way? Good question. The answer is not as far as anybody has measured. Yes, there are multiple specially designed experiments which seem to show a top-down causal relationship, and others which show so-called macro atomic constructs which act as a single quantum entity, but neither of these should be a comfort to the quantum woo woo adherents. Regardless, the woo woos will cite them anyway because virtually nobody will understand what they are saying enough to challenge them.

[qazplm]

10. Copenhagen?

Are you talking about the idea that observing something causing things to collapse into one definite state instead of remaining in a smear of probabilities?

[napoleon_in_rags]

11. If its woo its based on not understanding the classical limit.

That says quantum effects disappear into the averages once the scale becomes large enough. If its not than its a way of looking at things. Of course reality changes when people are close because we are part of reality.

[HillWilliam]

12. I thought that principle wasn't in physics... it was called

"marriage"

[Paulie]

13. Many worlds interpretation

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation

It makes for a good scifi plot device. Don't think it's useful otherwise.

[hunter]

14. Quantum Physics for Do-It-Yourself Science Enthusiasts...

An excellent site for the curious:

http://www.diyphysics.com