Watching energy

[sippie 16]

We all know the basic law of physics, but is there something we may or may not know? Let's say you leave your books in your school locker, and you go outside. How do you know if the books are not flying around in your closet when you aren't there? Sure, you can say that you can put camera's just to see if that's true. But what if the books doesn't fly when there is watching energy around? You know the strange feeling when someone is feeling you? That is probably the energy from watching so what if the energy isn't around?

Is it possible that objects do things when its not being watched?

Edited December 20, 2013 by sippie

[skylights 127]

Human observation doesn't have any direct impact on anything. Light is reflected from an object whether a set of eyeballs are there to receive it or not. So I'd say no, by virtue of the fact that an object would be unable to determine if it is being observed or not.

 

Also, your post made me think of Schroedinger.

[Scootalove 10,689]

That's what I wonder sometimes too. There would have to be a reason for this type of physics to be existent, sometimes I wonder.

[caramba2654 602]

I've always liked to think that an object doesn't exist to you unless you look at it.

[sippie 16]

Also, your post made me think of Schroedinger.

 

How so? Did he asked the same question?

[AnonBrony 1,468]

Ah the famous. "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?" Philosophical question. Only this time with sight and not sound. 

 

The answer: It is possible thing change or do things if they are not observed, if ever so slightly, but it is only possible because we can't prove it isn't. Most evidence would say it isn't. But like I said we can't prove it 100%. Just like how we can't prove this is reality, or if you walk into a room and close the door that every besides the room suddenly disappears like if this was some sort of matrix. How do you know for sure? You really can't.

Edited December 20, 2013 by AnonBrony

[skylights 127]

How so? Did he asked the same question?

 

One of the things he's most known for is a thought experiment in which (to put it briefly) a cat can be both alive and dead at the same time until it has been observed.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat

[sippie 16]

Interesting, going to see the guy's work.

[I used to be a stranger 7,993]

The two things you're probably forgetting about are Inertia (mass will always resist acceleration) and Entropy (a system will always try to reach thermodynamic equilibrium; a state with the least amount of unbalanced energy, and the least general order, since disorder requires less energy to maintain). Both of which are important elements in Classical Mechanics and Thermodynamics (respectively) which would purport the theory that your books do not randomly fly around your locker, since the action would require defiance of Inertia and Entropy.

 

Inertia means that the books do not simply fly up into the air, refusing to submit to air resistance or the Earth's gravitational pull--or the weak nuclear force that ensures the surface of the book "contacts" the sides of the locker walls and door, preventing it from simply undergoing osmosis through metal and flying off into space, for that matter. If the book had no classical effect of inertia upon it, it could do whatever it jolly-well wanted in interacting with anything in the universe. Why would it interact with just your locker? Or, along the same note, why would anything in the room you're currently in, "behave" rather than simply flying apart because you're not looking at it?

 

Entropy means that even if the book did disobey inertia, the lowest amount of energy that book can exert is the radioactive decay of the (quite stable) carbohydrates and plastics which comprise it, and the normal force acting upon it to keep it from crushing itself under its own weight. These forces are not very much. If the book just-as-well could up and flip the bird to Inertia, it might as well do the same to Entropy as well and suddenly have the pages undergo fission as they transect each other, causing a small nuclear explosion.

 

What the physical act of observation has to do with it is in the realm of special relativity, but classical physics dictate that things simply do as they are.

 

Schroedinger's Cat Paradox is an excellent example of how the theories in special relativity work. A cat is placed in a box with some poison (or other lethal contrivance), and then the box is closed. The cat is then simultaneously dead and alive inside the box, until the box is opened and contents are observed: by the act of observing the contents of the box, the constituent matter within it is collapsed from "possible universes" into the one we're observing. It has something to do with probability being another dimension, like time.

[A Blithering Div 247]

There is no watching energy unless you're referring to electromagnetic radiation. The books aren't flying around because there is no energy making them do so in the system.

[sippie 16]

The two things you're probably forgetting about are Inertia (mass will always resist acceleration) and Entropy (a system will always try to reach thermodynamic equilibrium; a state with the least amount of unbalanced energy, and the least general order, since disorder requires less energy to maintain). Both of which are important elements in Classical Mechanics and Thermodynamics (respectively) which would purport the theory that your books do not randomly fly around your locker, since the action would require defiance of Inertia and Entropy.

 

Inertia means that the books do not simply fly up into the air, refusing to submit to air resistance or the Earth's gravitational pull--or the weak nuclear force that ensures the surface of the book "contacts" the sides of the locker walls and door, preventing it from simply undergoing osmosis through metal and flying off into space, for that matter. If the book had no classical effect of inertia upon it, it could do whatever it jolly-well wanted in interacting with anything in the universe. Why would it interact with just your locker? Or, along the same note, why would anything in the room you're currently in, "behave" rather than simply flying apart because you're not looking at it?

 

Entropy means that even if the book did disobey inertia, the lowest amount of energy that book can exert is the radioactive decay of the (quite stable) carbohydrates and plastics which comprise it, and the normal force acting upon it to keep it from crushing itself under its own weight. These forces are not very much. If the book just-as-well could up and flip the bird to Inertia, it might as well do the same to Entropy as well and suddenly have the pages undergo fission as they transect each other, causing a small nuclear explosion.

 

What the physical act of observation has to do with it is in the realm of special relativity, but classical physics dictate that things simply do as they are.

 

Schroedinger's Cat Paradox is an excellent example of how the theories in special relativity work. A cat is placed in a box with some poison (or other lethal contrivance), and then the box is closed. The cat is then simultaneously dead and alive inside the box, until the box is opened and contents are observed: by the act of observing the contents of the box, the constituent matter within it is collapsed from "possible universes" into the one we're observing. It has something to do with probability being another dimension, like time.

 

There are 2 things invalid with this.

 

1. Gravity can bend.

2. Gravity is not always present on earth.

 

Why is it that ufo's can float in the air?

[Klopp 2,050]

The power of looking can be a strange and mysterious force. I've been studying about this kind of stuff for a long time, and I've just recently had a breakthrough.

 

You see, I've discovered that Looking Energy is merely a special type of ultraviolet lights created when the violet color reflects off of your retina back at an object. Using a special pair of sunglasses that I created, plated with a very thin mercury-gold alloy, it prevents the ultraviolet light from coming out of your eyes. But you can't wear them for too long, or else your eyes will burn.

 

I call them Looking Cancellation Glasses. And you would not BELIEVE what sort of things inanimate objects do when unaffected by looking energy. I once saw a deodorant stick flying around the room like a an airplane. But it fell out of the air when it went outside the frame of my Looking Cancellation Glasses.

 

By the way, my Looking Cancellation Glasses look like this: 

[Brony Number 42 10,069]

 

Schroedinger's Cat Paradox is an excellent example of how the theories in special relativity work. A cat is placed in a box with some poison (or other lethal contrivance), and then the box is closed. The cat is then simultaneously dead and alive inside the box, until the box is opened and contents are observed: by the act of observing the contents of the box, the constituent matter within it is collapsed from "possible universes" into the one we're observing. It has something to do with probability being another dimension, like time.

Wrong wrong wrong. You demonstrate a misunderstanding of physics. First, the Schrodinger's cat paradox is a lesson in quantum physics, not relativity. Two, the thought experiment is almost always misunderstood by the layman. The cat is not neither dead nor alive. Reality is NOT determined by observation. This is the popularized version of the debate that went on in the early 1900s because it makes for a better story than the actual physics, which involves mathematics. The solution to the equations of quantum physics are not point like. Rather they are waves.The wave function collapse occurs NOT when "observed" but instead when a large number of particles are involved, transitioning the system from quantum to classical. The wave never reaches a true delta function. Instead it becomes very narrow, cascading an almost-delta function collapse. This casscade of collapse manifests the classical laws that we see. The collapse is not due to observation, but the interaction of a macroscopic number of quantum systems.

There are 2 things invalid with this.

 

1. Gravity can bend.

2. Gravity is not always present on earth.

 

Why is it that ufo's can float in the air?

1: What do you mean by bend?

2: Wrong. Gravity is always present? When is it not?

[sippie 16]

Wrong wrong wrong. You demonstrate a misunderstanding of physics. First, the Schrodinger's cat paradox is a lesson in quantum physics, not relativity. Two, the thought experiment is almost always misunderstood by the layman. The cat is not neither dead nor alive. Reality is NOT determined by observation. This is the popularized version of the debate that went on in the early 1900s because it makes for a better story than the actual physics, which involves mathematics. The solution to the equations of quantum physics are not point like. Rather they are waves.The wave function collapse occurs NOT when "observed" but instead when a large number of particles are involved, transitioning the system from quantum to classical. The wave never reaches a true delta function. Instead it becomes very narrow, cascading an almost-delta function collapse. This casscade of collapse manifests the classical laws that we see. The collapse is not due to observation, but the interaction of a macroscopic number of quantum systems.

1: What do you mean by bend?

2: Wrong. Gravity is always present? When is it not?

 

1. The rules of gravity can be misunderstood if you let it do its thing.

2.Gravity is only present when its present. When it's not present, you don't know it because when you know it then its not there.

[Brony Number 42 10,069]

1. The rules of gravity can be misunderstood if you let it do its thing.

2.Gravity is only present when its present. When it's not present, you don't know it because when you know it then its not there.

So you don't have an answer. Got it.

[Legacy Dash 438]

Human observation doesn't have any direct impact on anything. Light is reflected from an object whether a set of eyeballs are there to receive it or not. So I'd say no, by virtue of the fact that an object would be unable to determine if it is being observed or not.

How can we know that for sure?

 

We can't know everything.

[Brony Number 42 10,069]

How can we know that for sure?

 

We can't know everything.

Scientific modeling and experimentation. We don't have to say we know everything. It is sufficient to say we know some things.

[Legacy Dash 438]

Scientific modeling and experimentation. We don't have to say we know everything. It is sufficient to say we know some things.

Well yeah, we probably know some things, but how do we know what information is correct and what isn't?

[Brony Number 42 10,069]

Well yeah, we probably know some things, but how do we know what information is correct and what isn't?

Sientific observation and testing of scientific models.

[Legacy Dash 438]

Sientific observation and testing of scientific models.

Science can't always be right though - although it might usually be correct alot of the time, occasionally it might be incorrect.

[sippie 16]

Science can't always be right though - although it might usually be correct alot of the time, occasionally it might be incorrect.

 

Some thousand of years ago, oh yeah they were sure that the world had the shape of a pancake! Oh yeah so sure, but then...

 

 

So you don't have an answer. Got it.

 

Answer? Read my post again.

Edited December 20, 2013 by sippie

[Brony Number 42 10,069]

Science can't always be right though - although it might usually be correct alot of the time, occasionally it might be incorrect.

Science is not something that is correct or incorrect. It is a process of investigation. The models can be wrong or not totally correct.

Some thousand of years ago, oh yeah they were sure that the world had the shape of a pancake! Oh yeah so sure, but then...

 

 

Answer? Read my post again.

Up equals down and 1+1=5. Ooo I'm so deep.

[sippie 16]

Science is not something that is correct or incorrect. It is a process of investigation. The models can be wrong or not totally correct.

Up equals down and 1+1=5. Ooo I'm so deep.

 

? What are you trying say with that? Your posts doesn't make any sense.

[Legacy Dash 438]

The models can be wrong or not totally correct.

Well in that case science might not be totally correct.

[Bucky McGillyCuddy 956]

I've always liked to think that an object doesn't exist to you unless you look at it.

Funny you say that because probably years ago now I watched a documentary that posed the question "Does something exist if you aren't looking at it?" The guy investigation the question talked to a bunch of scientists / physicists in different areas of study to see what they had to say and there were a lot of interesting theories about it. One of them explained that there are two of one person existing in the same place at the same time but one of them is in the mind of the other and that somehow effects what exists to that person and what doesn't. I can barely remember though but it was so damn interesting. I have to go find that documentary now haha.

 

|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

About the feeling you get when people are looking at you.

 

When you're looking at something it's usually a fixed point but you still have almost 270^o of peripheral vision that you aren't consciously paying attention to yet your brain is still processing it. All while that's happening there are certain parts of the brain that are used to identify faces, so even though you might not be looking directly at someone they might still be in your peripheral vision and you're brain says "Ok, it looks like some creeper is gawking my way" which causes you to turn in that direction. But maybe there is some kind of weird phenomenon surrounding it because I know before that I've turned around completely on several occasions to see someone looking at me so you never know.  

Edited December 20, 2013 by Bucky_McGillycuddy