Is Scale Related to Rate of Change in Quantum Mechanics?

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by Royce
M. Gaspar,
Here all this time I thought Tiberius was chewing me out. Welcome to the QM Dimwit Club of PF. So far we have three self admitted members. I nominate Flipton for president.
I got the book but haven't had a chance to more than look at it. I thought it funny that it is written by Gribbin, one of my favorite authors who writes scientific books for us nonscientifists. AMoung his other books that I've read was "In Search of Schrodinger's Cat" which is where I got a lot of my information on QM from.
He is one of the pop-culture authors that Tiberius accused me of reading. Don't you love the irony of it.
But that usually what happens, to me any way. Everytime I pop off about something I usually end up with my foot in my mouth.

Well, if there are three of us, I think we can bring him DOWN!

Someone, SUMMON TIBERIUS!

Listen : I can't remember who said it, but they said they wouldn't join a club that would have them as a member! The QM Dimwit Club certainly falls into that category for me.

When I saw "Clarification on QM" offered as a thread by Tiberius, I actually got excited (edit: well, "anticipatory", anyway). I was going to get some info from someone who knew beans. But then it took those beans and spit them in my eye ...whether he was aiming a "me" or not.

I've done some mentoring myself in my time, so I guess I was expecting content, generosity and encouragement.

Wrong again, Gaspar! Can't you get ANYTHING right?!

 

[M. Gaspar]

I'm on a roll...

I see that Tiberius is NOT a "PF Mentor" ...don't know why I thought he was (gee, that membership is looking better and better )

Anyway, back to the recommended -- and denigrated -- books!

 

[Royce]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar

Listen : I can't remember who said it, but they said they wouldn't join a club that would have them as a member! The QM Dimwit Club certainly falls into that category for me.

I think it was Mark Twain. I'm not much of a joiner either; but, in this instance I was volunteered. They only other club that I would like to join is the Procrastinators Club of America but I haven't gotten around to it yet, maybe after they have their first meeting I'll sign up.

When I saw "Clarification on QM" offered as a thread by Tiberius, I actually got excited (edit: well, "anticipatory", anyway). I was going to get some info from someone who knew beans. But then it took those beans and spit them in my eye ...whether he was aiming a "me" or not.

I've been shot down so many time here that I feel like a very inept WW I pilot. Some times it was, of course, justified and I had it coming. Other time it was just some one take pot shot at me. You are not the only one M. G. Everyone seems to be fair game around here at one time or another. Any way you have no choice in the matter you have been deligated as a founding member of the QDC of PF.

Between being assigned books to read and books I want to read and keeping up with all the posts I'm running out of time to sleep. Thank God I'm not this busy at work.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by Royce
I've been shot down so many time here that I feel like a very inept WW I pilot. Some times it was, of course, justified and I had it coming. Other time it was just some one take pot shot at me. You are not the only one M. G. Everyone seems to be fair game around here at one time or another. Any way you have no choice in the matter you have been deligated as a founding member of the QDC of PF.

Guess what: I'm over it already.

Must be the up-side of a short attention span!

Still, I would have preferred that Tiberius return to the scene of his crime ...ya know, man's inhumanity to dimwits? But I'm sure we'll catch up with each other down the road...and that I won't be playing road kill to his hit and run.

As to membership: OK, I accept...except that I've already been LEFT OUT of the acronym: shouldn't it be QMDC of PF? I'll work up a logo.

Meanwhile, I think we need to go elsewhere to get that "Clarification on QM" we were enticed here with.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by Tiberius
Yes - There is quite a lot more to QM that the tiny area I covered. I don't blame all the confusion on mystics. In fact, a lot of it is the fault of scientists. Many of them don't see a need in explaining things clearly to non-scientists (which is why people like Sagan are so important). In addition, the use of the word "observation" was a poor choice and they should have seen the confusion coming a mile a way. And lastly, there still are a lot of unanswered questions, which is why scientists are still employed. But I DO blame the mystics who have intentionally jumped on the "observation" word to support their wild claims in order to sell more books. I also blame those mystics who blindly follow those books and refuse to listen to people who try to clear it up.

I was re-reading this thread to "mine" any actual info contained therein on the subtleties of Quantum Mechanics. Fact is, I eschew "mystics" myself. However, on these threads, it seems to me, that there are more people here than not who are eager "to listen to people who try to clear" things up. And SOME of us might even have a contribution to make after we get the info in "our language".

My argument is not with your position regarding misinformation, nor even the fact that scientists themselves are often LOUSY COMMUNICATORS. My issue is with your attitude toward me and other right-brainers.

For instance, I've never heard Sagan say: "Hey, idiots! So you think you know something about science...?"

The Universe may or may not be conscious...but you'll have to concede there is consciousness "in" it. Thus, any cosmological theory that does NOT include the nature and evolution of consciousness is an INCOMPLETE THEORY.

My interest is not "woo woo". And my participation is not irrelevant.

 

[Royce]

Never thought of it that way. Here I thought a short attention span was a deficit. Learn somthing new every day!
I accept your suggested change and it has been entered into the minutes of the first meeting of QMDC of PF.

Seriously, I do think, along with Flipton, that Tiberius was over simplifying QM and just unloading on what he thought were a bunch or couple of New Agers. I'd never heard the term before this thread. My understanding of the obsever being a person or mind and a part of the experiment is not original with me nor anyone book or author. The outcome of the experiment does seem to be influenced by what the observer is looking for and trying to determine. Far great mind than mine have repeatedly said this and as Flipton asked then what about the many world theory that came out of the Copenhegen conference? I can understand that it may now be out dated speculation but it still has not been resolved to everyones satisfaction.
I don't know what our reading now; but, I do suggest "In Search for Schrodinger's Cat" by John Gribbon. He also wrote a sequel "In Search for Schrodinger's kittens as well as a number of other good books on science, physics and chosmology; easy to read and good primers for us nonscientists.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by Fliption
...I will say however, going back to the original topic of this thread, that I don't see how the idea that particles aren't like billiad balls allows what Tiberius was originally claiming. I contend that there is more to QM then Tiberius has stated. Rather than blame all the confusion on mystics, I think there should be a lot more discussion of QM in both the physics and the philosophy forum.

I've captured this shorter quote just to save on space. Please continue to share your interpretations.

But the real question is: why are YOU a charter member of QMDC? (No offense, Royce.)

Meanwhile, you and Royce have been added to my VERY SELECTIVE "Buddy" list...but you're not in "good company" because I'm adding Tiberius, too.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by Royce
Learn somthing new every day!

No. That's Altzheimers!

I accept your suggested change and it has been entered into the minutes of the first meeting of QMDC of PF.

You're making me smile, Royce...and you wouldn't like me when I smile... (Hulk reference: very highbrow. See? I DO belong!)

I don't know what our reading now; but, I do suggest "In Search for Schrodinger's Cat" by John Gribbon. He also wrote a sequel "In Search for Schrodinger's kittens as well as a number of other good books on science, physics and chosmology; easy to read and good primers for us nonscientists.

I don't know about YOU, but I feel as if I'm reading a book a day on these threads! And writing one, too!

I got to get a life.

 

[Royce]

I made him a charter member as was my right as the founder because he had the audacity to disagree with Tiberius. (We should quit picking on him.)

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by Royce
I made him a charter member as was my right as the founder because he had the audacity to disagree with Tiberius. (We should quit picking on him.)

He's outa town (an assumption based on no posts since Friday!) so let us pick away! He'll swat us like flies when he returns!

I'm having too much fun. PM. Gotta go.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
He's outa town (an assumption based on no posts since Friday!) so let us pick away! He'll swat us like flies when he returns!

SWAT! I am back and will now crush you like a bug!

Looks like you 2 have got this thread all figured out. It is certainly good to see that other people are reading about QM and have the same questions I do. It means I am not alone. It is also encouraging to me that you guys see this thread for what it truly is. It was certainly not a clarification on QM. It still could be if either Tiberius or some of the people who agreed with him initially would come in and discuss it. I have tried to explain why I think that Tiberius' "clarification" is misleading but no one has responded. I agree with you guys...looks like we may need to get this clarification elsewhere.

As for membership into this club... I will admit I belong. But I also would argue that everyone who posted in this thread ALSO belongs!
Unless of course a prerequisite to getting in the club is that you have to admit you are ignorant. Some people might not fit all the criteria then.

 

[Royce]

While ignorance is certainly a criteria, it is the addmission of ignorance and/or confusion and/or lack of understanding that is the primary requirement for membership in QMDC of PF! This of course eliminates Tiberius from membership as he, as well as others, are absolutely sure of everything and that everything has been absolutely PROVEN by science.

Yes, I'm being nasty. I hope Tiberius is out of town too or I'm really going to get swatted down, probably with a sledge hammer.
(We/I really have to stop picking on him.)

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by Fliption
SWAT! I am back and will now crush you like a bug!

Wait a minute. I thought we were talking about Tiberius.

Why would you, Fliption, crush me -- and, of course, Royce -- like "bugs" when you're a bug, too? Maybe you're a BIGGER bug...but not as BIG as Tiberius!

And isn't he well-named? He just seems MONU MENTAL! .

Let's see if he's big enough to share what he knows -- or what he thinks he knows -- and "deliver the goods" on this thread.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by Royce
I hope Tiberius is out of town too or I'm really going to get swatted down, probably with a sledge hammer.
(We/I really have to stop picking on him.) [/B]

I'm not picking on him. I'm killing time until he returns.

And he WILL return.

But I agree with you: enough about Mr. T and more about QM .

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Fliption
SWAT! I am back and will now crush you like a bug!

Looks like you 2 have got this thread all figured out. It is certainly good to see that other people are reading about QM and have the same questions I do. It means I am not alone. It is also encouraging to me that you guys see this thread for what it truly is. It was certainly not a clarification on QM. It still could be if either Tiberius or some of the people who agreed with him initially would come in and discuss it. I have tried to explain why I think that Tiberius' "clarification" is misleading but no one has responded. I agree with you guys...looks like we may need to get this clarification elsewhere.

Please explain again what it is that you disagree with, in Tiberius' post. It seemed perfectly sound to me.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by Mentat
Please explain again what it is that you disagree with, in Tiberius' post. It seemed perfectly sound to me.

He hurt our feelings.

Scroll back.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
He hurt our feelings.

Scroll back.

I was referring to why you disagreed with his explanation of QM. I am perfectly aware of his having inadvertantly insulted you, when talked about people who read books written by people who misunderstood QM.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Wait a minute. I thought we were talking about Tiberius.

Why would you, Fliption, crush me --

I thought you were talking about me based on below



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Royce
I made him a charter member as was my right as the founder because he had the audacity to disagree with Tiberius. (We should quit picking on him.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

He's outa town (an assumption based on no posts since Friday!) so let us pick away! He'll swat us like flies when he returns!

I'm having too much fun. PM. Gotta go.




When he said in parenthesis "we should quit picking on him", I thought he was talking about me. But I guess you could read it 2 ways

 

[Royce]

Mentat, to answer your question, There is more to wave functions than just probabily of position and momentum and from everything I've read the observer is a necessary and intragal part of any QM experiment. The pop culture authors I've been reading and quoting or at leasst paraphrasing are Gribbins, Feynman, and such others. We or at least I have never heard of New Agers before this thread. While he named no names we assumed that he was talking about MG and me as we were speculating on QM and consciousness and awareness.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Mentat
I was referring to why you disagreed with his explanation of QM. I am perfectly aware of his having inadvertantly insulted you, when talked about people who read books written by people who misunderstood QM.

Mentat, I would recommend you go back and read my earlier posts. I think it's pretty clear where there may be problems with what he is saying. It appears he has over simplified a theory that many respected scientists have admitted they are stumped on. It appears to me that if his explanation is true then QM is nothing but an extension of classical physics. I am certainly open to other views on it as I have said that this topic is one that I have many questions about. But in this case I would have to reconcile in my mind the view that Tiberius has presented with just about everything else I have read on the topic.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Just speaking for myself, I want to apologize to Tiberius. After seeing some of the things that have been said, I feel I might have been responsible for inspiring a less than "welcome" attitude here.

I tried to joke about it in an another post (which I deleted), but I think I need to say it outright and upfront. Tiberius . . . welcome. I hope you stick around.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Just speaking for myself, I want to apologize to Tiberius. After seeing some of the things that have been said, I feel I might have been responsible for inspiring a less than "welcome" attitude here.

I tried to joke about it in an another post (which I deleted), but I think I need to say it outright and upfront. Tiberius . . . welcome. I hope you stick around.

Surprisingly, I feel the same way.

 

[Royce]

I agree, Les. We have been chatting and amusing ourselves to keep this thread alive in hopes that Tiberius or anyone else would come in and educate us or at least attempt to clarify it for us. Admittedly at first our feeling were hurt, our feathers ruffled, whatever and we were getting even; but, that has long since passed. We await the teacher to come.

I questioned reviving this thread and thought it maight have been better to let it die. I'm beginning to think that is the case.

Having said that I must admit that we have had fun, even if it was at Tiberius's expense and I've made a couple of new friends so all was not wasted.

 

[Fliption]

Hmmm well I hope it isn't perceived that I have displayed an unproductive attitude in this thread. It certainly wasn't my intent. Hence I feel no need for atonement. I'm a bit dissapointed that it appears I will have to continue to wait to have a good QM discussion in these forums.

I have not given up on it though. While I don't think it was Tiberius' intent to have an open discussion with this thread, that doesn't mean that he/she isn't willing to have one in another thread. Or anyone else that particpated here for that matter. I was hoping to prod them into that in this thread, but it may be that everyone is just too busy at the moment to respond with thoughtful input. I definitely understand that!

 

[Eh]

Flipton,

I'm just curious as to what specifically you've read from physicists that throws confusion over the issue? They are notorious for being sloppy with the english language, but I haven't seen any that say consciousness is a necessary property of an "observer". So is there anything particular?

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Fliption
Hmmm well I hope it isn't perceived that I have displayed an unproductive attitude in this thread. It certainly wasn't my intent. Hence I feel no need for atonement.

No, I don't think you have either, or need to be contrite. I mean mostly myself, I've been cranky (a tough week).

Originally posted by Fliption
I have not given up on it though. While I don't think it was Tiberius' intent to have an open discussion with this thread, that doesn't mean that he/she isn't willing to have one in another thread. Or anyone else that particpated here for that matter. I was hoping to prod them into that in this thread, but it may be that everyone is just too busy at the moment to respond with thoughtful input. I definitely understand that!

I have to echo EH here . . . I honestly thought the issue of observation and a collapsing wave function was settled; that it was only a misunderstanding by the general public (including me at one time), while experts always understood what was happening. Are you able to find the sources you've been referring to?

 

[Royce]

Les, Iknow you weren't address ing me, but the sources I've been reading were among others, John Gribbins, a respected scientist and author, "In search for Schroedinger's Cat", In Search For Schroedinger's kittens" and Richard Feynman's "QED". I've read and am reading a few others but not exclusively about QM, some others that I can't remember off hand. Most of them began by giving the history of the development of QM and quoted many of the scientist involved and their speculations.
I may have read to much into it or mis understood the allusions or metaphors to be fact. I am not a mathematician nor a scientist so I can not read really technical or mathematical scientific works and get asnything out of them.
Gribbin himself says that the theories and experiements agree to
astonishing degrees but says that it is QM cookbooks that work and that there are still major questions to be answered about QM itself.
Unfortunately I got those books from the library so I don't have them at hand to quote of refer to.

 

[Tiberius]

I didn't realize there was much else to discuss here but Fliption mentioned it in another thread. Is someone actually saying that consciousness DOES play a role in QM? If so, there's not much else I can say that I didn't say in my last post here.

 

[Royce]

Tiberius, M. Gaspar, Myself and maybe some others were speculating about what little we know about Qm and asking questions even if they may have been rhetorical. How do the particles know that they are being observed and as in the EPR paradox how could the nonlocal particle know that the spin of its partner has been determined or changed. Could it be consciousness? We don't know because we don't really understand but are trying to. To us it is an enigma.
We are not claiming that is is proof of anything or trying to use it to support our mystisism or pet theories.

 

[Tiberius]

Originally posted by Royce
Tiberius, M. Gaspar, Myself and maybe some others were speculating about what little we know about Qm and asking questions even if they may have been rhetorical. How do the particles know that they are being observed and as in the EPR paradox how could the nonlocal particle know that the spin of its partner has been determined or changed. Could it be consciousness? We don't know because we don't really understand but are trying to. To us it is an enigma.
We are not claiming that is is proof of anything or trying to use it to support our mystisism or pet theories.

Ah, thanks for the update Royce.

As far as "knowing it's been observed" I think that would be, as I outlined originally, that the particle detecting it has to bump into it to do so. Please forgive if there was more to the question I missed before coming back.

The dual proton thingy is a bit more tricky. However, I believe it is much to do about nothing. There's one thought I had about that, that I'd like to share and see what you all think...

Epistemology in science normally says that what is real, for all intents and purposes, is that which can be measured. That's why relativity says that whether or not events are simultaneous is a matter of where you are - there is NO TRUE SIMULTANEOUSNESS apart from the aparent. IOW, there is NO obsolute frame that is the "true" reality. If a supernova goes off 100 light years away, and another one goes off ten years later at 110 light years away, we are not allowed to say "well, these were simultaneous". Instead, for EARTH, we say they happened 10 years apart. So, by strict scientific epistemology, what you see is what is "real".

Now, you can't have it both ways. If you're going to go with a philosophic slant on reality that tries to look at the observations and "figure out" what's really happened, that could be done - but that's not science and it's not going to be compatible once you start trying to figure out scientific theories. So, all of that will fall apart once you give up the epistemology on which it is based. A big part of our problem lies in the fact that we keep switching between relativistic and absolute perspective, and still expect everything to make sense.

If you look at it relativistically, I think you'll find that no faster than light interaction occurs in the dual-proton wave collapse...

For example. We split off the protons. We take one to a planet orbiting Alpha Centauri, about 4 light years away. The other we leave in another lab here on earth. We also have some very powerful telescopes that let us look at the other scientists there, who can show us signs and wave at us, and us them.

Now, here on earth, we collapse the wave function of our proton and then look in the telescope. We see that the other scientists are still looking at their proton, waiting for it to collapse!

In fact, we have to wait four years before we can verify that the other proton has collapsed. So, what has actually happened for Earth is that we collapsed our proton, and the other proton REALLY DID collapse four years later. According to all observation, NOTHING has traveled faster than light. Even if both protons are here on Earth you face the same situation in principle, except the distances difference would be minute beyond detection.

Now, if you want to look at it from a "universal" perspective, then you're already abandoning 20th century science and a LOT of things are going to fall apart in that case.

 

[Royce]

I have just finished "The Universe in a Nutshell" Hawking used the EPR paradox to really throw an curve. He has one of the photon get swallowed by a black hole so that not only the information of the state of that proton or particle was gone but the state of the remaining on could never be determined so it's information was gone too. At least that's the way I read it.
Anyway thanks for the response and the clarification.

 

[Fliption]

No Tiberous, I am not claiming that consciousness is what collapses the wave function. What I am saying is that you're claim is also not "THE" correct interpretation of quantum physics. I am saying that everything I read about QM is about trying to understand what it means to say "the observer collapses the wave function". Yes, this sentence is vague and as has been noted, can be interpreted several different ways. But the reason it is worded this way is because this is all we know! To actually define these terms in a more specific, less vague manner (the way you have) implies that we know "how" it works. For example you claim the wave function collapse due to the detecting particle interfering with it. This is an explanation for "how" the collapse works. There are numerous interpretations of QM that try to get at the answer to exactly that question. Yet you have dismissed all of this inquiry and disagreement by claiming it to be "X" as if this were standard knowledge.

I have found some references on the web to some experiments that test this very idea of a physical measurement causing a disturbance that will then collapse the wave function. I'm still looking for my books. It's irritating but they have been stuck in some dusty closet somewhere and laughing at me from afar . I will keep looking.

I will copy a bit of the text from one site and provide the link where you can read the entire thing yourself. I'm sure from there that you can research any of the experiments, universities or scientists involved.

quote... (bold emphasis is mine)

"An unobserved quantum entity is said to exist in a "coherent superposition" of all the possible "states" permitted by its "wave function." But as soon as an observer makes a measurement capable of distinguishing between these states the wave function "collapses", and the entity is forced into a single state.
Yet even this deliberately abstract language contains some misleading implications. One is that measurement requires direct physical intervention. Physicists often explain the uncertainty principle in this way:in measuring the position of a quantum entity, one inevitably blocks it off its course, losing information about its direction and about its phase, the relative position of its crests and troughs. ...

(Snip)(snip) please read all this (snip)...

Now comes the odd part. The signal photons and the idler photons, once emitted by the down-converters, never again cross paths; they proceed to their respective detectors independently of each other. Nevertheless, simply by blocking the path of one set of idler photons, the researchers destroy the interference pattern of the signal photons. What has changed?
The answer is that the observer's potential knowledge has changed. He can now determine which route the signal photons took to their detector by comparing their arrival times with those of the remaining, unblocked idlers. The original photon can no longer go both ways at the beam splitter, like a wave, but must either bounce off or pass through like a particle.


end quotes...

This statement in bold above is exactly what I was referring to in my first post here. There was no interference by the measurement itself. The only difference that could have caused the collapse was the potential for knowledge. As I said before, a conscious observer need not be present. But if a conscious observer can come by at any time after and calculate the information then the wave function will collapse. The implications for this seem profound to me.

Please, all of you (Les, EH, Tiberous) read through this stuff and let's reconcile it with what your thoughts were.

General page where above quotes came from.
http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/qphil.html
More info on experiments specifically
http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/seedark.html
Another link comparing interpretations of QM based on these types of experiments
http://www.tardyon.de/ko2.htm

And as for the comments on locality...I think claiming it is a non-issue because everyone is just confused about relativity is absurd. Einstein himself dealt with this issue and of all people I think he would have known of any relativity confusion. I think this comment is evidence of a lack of understanding of QM.

 

[Royce]

Thankyou Fliption, That is exactly the phenomena I was talking about.
As I told Les I was getting my information from library books so didn't have them on hand to reference them. Iscanned through the first one after reading your post then downloaded to entireky to read later as I will the others.
From what I read, unless it is intentionally vague to mislead people like me, my understand that the observer is the scientist doing the experiement and is an integral part of the experiment and his actions effect the out come of the experiment.
It really blew me away when I read that the observers action can change the results of an experiment that had all ready been completed. That is what I read isn't it?

Profound hardly covers it.

Thanks again Fliption. Gotta go. [zz)]

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Fliption
Please, all of you (Les, EH, Tiberous) read through this stuff and let's reconcile it with what your thoughts were.

Excellent articles, especially the first Scientific American piece. To tell you the truth, I don't know what to think, and it appears from the articles neither does anyone else. So you seem right to say that it is premature for anyone to claim they know THE correct way to look at this aspect of QM.

Personally, I still suspect some physical element having to do with detection is causing it (i.e., rather than consciousness), and that there's something about the wave-particle relationship we don't understand which would answer what it is.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Royce
Mentat, to answer your question, There is more to wave functions than just probabily of position and momentum and from everything I've read the observer is a necessary and intragal part of any QM experiment. The pop culture authors I've been reading and quoting or at leasst paraphrasing are Gribbins, Feynman, and such others. We or at least I have never heard of New Agers before this thread. While he named no names we assumed that he was talking about MG and me as we were speculating on QM and consciousness and awareness.

Well, yeah. New-agers do believe that conscious observations is somehow connected with QM (not saying that only New-agers believe this way, just that they do), when, in point of actual fact, QM doesn't require any such thing.

The "observation" that collapses a wave-function is merely the energy interaction that takes place between all physical things. Remember Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle? In many pop culture science books it is explained that a particle's exact position cannot be known, because it requires energy to make an observation (of position), and the energy changes the position.

This is obviously an over-simplification, but it gives the reader a basic understanding of Uncertainty.

Notice, however, that nowhere in that explanation of Uncertainty, do I say that one needs to be trying to "observe" the phenomenon, merely that the energy needs to be exchanged.

P.S. Forgive me if I make a lot of typo's or if I am not as clear as I usually am. My glasses are broken and I'm seeing double (not to mention the pounding headache that almost kept me from the PFs for the second day in a row).