I'm not using observation as you say, i use it as defined above by some dictionariesFunky Stanton wrote:You're using the term observation to mean thinking. You're also talking about experiments as closed systems, there are no closed systems except in pure mathematics (and apparently economics, chortle chortle).alien pimp wrote: observation as we conceive it today - an intellectual activity confined in our brain - is hardly suspect for changing particles behaviour.
the hypothesis that observation generates such forces that puts it in line with gravity is hardly supported by anything, but if it does it goes along my lines: we're physically interfering in the observed system
If experiments are not closed systems, that means the observation is not the only thing that might interact with the particle, therefore its not the only one to be suspected for changing particle's attitude as these guys say, then again: faulty science
of course it's not the only thing that can act on it or interact with it... the whole point of experiment is you work out all of this and find supporting proof for your theory, rather than just say it's so... and account for it. You have systematic effects and statistical effects within the experiment, as well as systematic and random effects outside of the "experiment" (if you're looking at it as a black box system) and a good scientists takes all of these into account. repeat, repeat, repeat and do some very good data analysis and repeat, repeat, repeat....... rule them out - work out whats going on.
